Transcript Slide 1

Fertilizer Outlook, Precision
Ag, Water Quality,
Increased Efficiency
Fertilizer Outlook
A Global Market
Real GDP Growth and Trend (% Change)
•Emerging economies continue more rapid growth rates
Numbers of Under-nourished
People in the World*
*Source: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
World Cereal Production
and Utilization (million tons)*
*Source: FAO
Global Cereal Stocks to Use Ratio from
1995-96 to 2009-2010*
*Source: FAO
Anticipated Annual Variations in
Aggregate Regional Fertilizer Demand
between 2007/08 and 2010/11 (Mt nutrients)*
*Source: International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA)
China Buys Potash
(Green Markets, Jan. 4, Vol. 34, pg. 1)
• Belarusian Potash Co. (BPC) concluded a deal
to sell potash to China for January-Dec. 2010
• Deal is for 1.2 million metric tons with an
option for 200,000 additional tons
• Price is $350/metric ton (~$318/short ton)
CFR
• Is this the new floor price for potash?
World Supply/Demand Balances:
2008—2009—2010
Product
Nitrogen
2008
Million tons
2009
Million Tons
2010
Million Tons
Supply
128.5
133.0
136.9
Demand
125.1
122.5
129.1
+3.4
+10.5
+7.8
Supply
151.6
158.5
165.3
Demand
146.2
148.0
156.4
+5.24
+10.5
+8.9
Potential Balance
Urea
Potential Balance
World Supply/Demand Balances:
2008—2009—2010
Product
Phosphoric
Acid
Potash
2008
Million tons
2009
Million Tons
2010
Million Tons
Supply
P2O5
37.8
39.4
40.6
Demand
P2O5
32.8
32.5
35.1
Potential Balance
+5.0
+6.9
+5.5
Supply
K2O
36.4
37.5
38.6
Demand
K20
27.6
24.9
27.8
Potential Balance
+8.8
+12.6
+10.8
Current Commodity Situation
Date
Corn*
($/bu)
Soybeans*
($/bu)
Soy Meal
($/ton)
July 2010
4.36
10.67
304.00
Sept
2010
Dec 2010
4.40
10.40
296.80
4.44
285.00
July 2011
4.64
10.31 (Jan
2011)
10.29
285.90
Feeder
Cattle**
($/cwt.)
99.50 (Aug
2010)
99.40
99.40 (Nov
2010)
-----
*Corn, Soybeans, and Soy Meal – Chicago Board of Trade Futures, 5 January 2010.
**Feeder Cattle – CME Futures, 5 January 2010
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/commodities/
Do commodity prices
support standard
fertilizer rates?
Efficiency
•Yield levels that cover
fixed costs and provide
for profits
•Land cost
•Input cost
•Technology that maximizes the
use of all inputs
Orchardgrass Response to N Fertilization
12000
Yield (lbs/acre)
10000
8000
N (lbs/acre)
50
100
6000
Yield (lbs/acre)
~4800
~6200
4000
2000
0
100
200
300
N Rate (lbs/acre)
*Hall et. al. 2003. Optimum N feritlization of cool-season grasses in the
Northeast USA. Agronomy J. 95:1023-1027.
400
Fertilizer Management
Winter-Spring 2010
• Crop Response to fertilizer applications
– Initial applications of N, P, and K give greatest
responses IF SITE IS RESPONSIVE
• Review soil test levels from last year
– Fields that were medium to low and did not receive P
and K would be expected to be the most responsive to
P and K fertilizer applications this year
– If P soil test levels were high to very high, decline in
soil test level will not be expected to be great for silt
loam and clay loam soils.
– Soil test K levels will decline more rapidly due to
higher rates of removal with silage, hay, and straw
removal.
Fertilizer Management
Winter-Spring 2010
• Review blends
– N-K blends without P may be more productive
than the typical N-P-K blends that have been used
in previous years.
– Consider more split applications for N and K
during the year to reduce risk. Apply second
applications only if soil moisture is available and
forage is needed.
– Tissue test forages to verify adequate nutrition or
determine what nutrients may be low.
– Get soil tests early to be able to plan as much as
possible.
Increased Efficiency and Precision Ag
Convergence of Technologies
Precision Ag
•Computer programs
•Lower cost
•More user friendly
•Web-based
•Stand alone
•GPS units
•Lower cost
•Enable “Smart sampling”
•Application Equipment
•Controllers – reduced cost
•Applicators – Flexible
Precision Application Equipment
One or Several Products
Fertilizer Management
Winter-Spring 2010
• Uniformity of application is critical.
• Doubling the rate of application does not
Orchardgrass Response to N Fertilization
double yield!
12000
•First 100 lbs = 3700 lbs DM
•Second 100 lbs = 2200 lbs DM
Yield (lbs/acre)
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
100
200
300
N Rate (lbs/acre)
*Hall et. al. 2003. Optimum N feritlization of cool-season grasses in the
Northeast USA. Agronomy J. 95:1023-1027.
400
Water Quality
Regional, State and Local Issue
Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL)
Development for the
Chesapeake Bay
Ref. Federal Register 74,
No.179, Sept. 17, 2009
Ref. The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to
Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Sept. 9,
2009. www.executiveorderchesapeakebay.net
Compliance and Enforcement Role
Enforcement Tools Currently Available
 Designate AFOs as CAFOs making them subject to
permitting requirements
 Audit, inspect, and provide compliance
assistance to improve best management
practices and stormwater management plans
 Enforce stormwater requirements at large
construction sites to reduce sediment loss
 Enforce new source review, and permit
requirements at stationary sources and mobile
source regulations at port facilities, warehouses,
and construction sites to reduce Nox emissions
Reference: The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in
the Chesapeake Bay. www.executiveorderchesapeakebay.net page A-3 and A-4
Compliance and Enforcement Role
Enforcement Tools Currently Available
• Monitor compliance with major milestones for
installing controls at wastewater treatment
plants and take appropriate enforcement
• Enhance effectiveness in oversight of state
enforcement programs and initiate supportive
federal enforcement actions
• Seek to ensure that all CAFOs that discharge or
propose to discharge obtain National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit
coverage.
Reference: The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in
the Chesapeake Bay. www.executiveorderchesapeakebay.net Page A-3, A-4
Compliance and Enforcement Role
Enforcement Tools Currently Available
• With other EPA, state, and federal partners,
engage in education and outreach to the CAFO
community about statutory and regulatory
requirements
• Target cleanup activities at hazardous waste
sites identified as contribution to specific
impairments to water quality in the Bay
Reference: The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in
the Chesapeake Bay. www.executiveorderchesapeakebay.net Page A-3, A-4
EPA Letter (Dec. 29, 2009) to
Honorable Preston Bryant
Secretary of Natural Resources
• EPA Region 3, Shawn M. Garvin, Regional
Administrator
– Bay Program Accountability Framework
– EPA Expected Deliverables and Triggers for Federal
Action
– Potential Federal Actions
Potential Federal Actions
(EPA Region 3 Letter-29 Dec 2009)
• Expand NPDES permit coverage to currently
unregulated sources
• Object to NPDES permits and increase
program oversight
• Require net improvement offsets
• Establish finer scale wasteload and laod
allocations in the Bay TMDL
• Require additional reductions of loadings from
point sources
Potential Federal Actions
(EPA Region 3 Letter-29 Dec 2009)
• Increase and target federal enforcement and
compliance assurance in the watershed
• Condition or redirect EPA grants
• Federal promulgation of local nutrient water
quality standards
What does the mean?
 Animal feeding operations
 May be subject to increased regulation
 Nutrient management plans may be required for smaller
operations
 Current planning process in VA is detailed, inflexible, and usually
difficult to totally implement and maintain up-to-date.
 Follow this process carefully to see how individual farms may be
affected.
 Grain, forage, vegetable, turf, tree, and ornamental plant
production
 More nutrient management plans may be required as the Bay
model uses “acres under nutriment management plans” as an
indicator of reduction in nutrient losses to water
 Implementation?
Water Quality Legislation
• Review the details
– Categorize positives and negatives
• Contact your legislators
– Specific comments
– Economic impact of specific requirements carry
weight with legislators and their staff
• Work with farm organizations
– establish positions and communicate
to legislators and government agency
personnel
Farm Sustainability
•Economic
•Productivity
•Environmental
Efficiency
•Yield levels that cover
fixed costs and provide
for profits
•Land cost
•Input cost
•Technology that maximizes the
use of all inputs
Producer Survey
Shenandoah Valley Watershed
What is your most frequently used source of information for
crop production information? (RANK in order of
importance)
• Seed/Fertilizer/Crop Protection Advisor ---------- S/F/CPA
• Feed/Nutrition Advisor ------------------------------F/NA
• Cooperative Extension ------------------------------- Coop Ext.
• DCR Personnel --------------------------------------- DCR
• NRCS Personnel -------------------------------------- NRCS
• Soil & Water Conservation Service Personnel --- S&WC
• Neighbor/Other Farmer ------------------------------ Neighbor
• Other --------------------------------------------------- Other
Producer Response to
“Source of Information”
Question 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
x
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S/F/CPA
63 responses
F/NA
Coop Ext
DCR
NRCS
S&WC
Neighbor
Other
“With Great Influence Comes Great Responsibility
Technology Development
and Implementation
• Research Examples – Basic and applied
– Genetics – Traits
– Nutrition
– Plant protection
• Implementation
– Regions
– Soils
– Production Systems
• Issue
– Who will do this in the future?
Farm Sustainability
•Economic
•Productivity
•Environmental