Transcript Slide 1

A New Fulcrum for Nutrient
Management …
Balancing on the Old Won’t Do
Western Nutrient Management Conference
March 3-4, 2005 Salt Lake City, UT
Paul Fixen
Potash & Phosphate Institute
The Balance Paradigm
Environment
Productivity
Nutrient
Management
The Balance Paradigm
If one goes up … the other goes down
Environmental progress is associated with productivity losses
Progress with one shifts resources away from the other
Nutrient
Management
Environmental Considerations
for nutrient management
 Global reactive N
 Hypoxia
 Surface and ground water quality
 Air quality
 Soil quality (metals, pathogens, etc.)
 Climate change
 Biodiversity
• Production must increase
• Brown quote
Source: FAO
25x25
 Vision: Agriculture will provide 25% of the total
energy consumed in the U.S. by 2025 while
continuing to produce abundant, safe and
affordable food and fiber. Ag Energy Working Group
 Role of agriculture:
 Produce liquid fuels for
 Produce biomass for
energy production
tranportation’s needs
 Harness wind and solar  Utilize crop residues and
Clearly
beyond
the
traditional
ag
wastes to generate heat
energy
role of food and fiber
production
and
power
 Process biogases for
 Capture C, sequester GH
the production of
gases and improve air,
electricity
water and soil quality
Soil Test P Frequency Distribution for
North America in 2001
2.0 million samples
45%
Median P = 28 ppm
Median Soil Test P Levels in 2001
Bray P-1 Equivalent, ppm
BC
AB
MB
SK
WA
MT
NGP
12
ON
PQ
PEI
NB
ME
NE
>50
ND
MN
OR
VT
ID
W
21
WY
IA
NE
NV
CA
NC
30
IL
UT
CO
NH
NY
WI
SD
NS
MI
MA
CT
RI
PA
IN
NJ
OH
MD
DE
WV
VA
MO
KS
AZ
NM
SGP
21
OK
TX
North America
28 ppm P
KY
NC
TN
AR
SC
MS
LA
SE
36
AL
GA
FL
Data not available for:
AL, BC, NC, ON, SC, VA, WV
A critical need for the (re)integration of
nutrient management and agronomy
Answering the “simple” question:
What level of nutrient X does this crop need on
this soil … considering system yield, product
quality, and soil, water and air impacts?
Haven’t the important agronomic questions
related to nutrient management been answered?
Recent K Recommendation Changes in Iowa
Soil test
category
% of IA soils*
Old
New
Very low
3
12
Low
9
24
Optimum (Medium)
24
High
24
13
Very high
40
27
36
2460
K recommended
in Iowa
(1000 tons K2O)
Old recs
New recs
*Based on PPI 2001 summary of 327,000 samples using low
subsoil interpretation for all soils.
Number in red is % medium or below.
260
572
K response of cotton varieties has
changed
1998
1981
“Based on these recent results, new, higher-yielding, fastfruiting cotton varieties may respond favorably to higher rates
of applied K than older varieties.”
Camberato and Jones, Clemson U.
Response to P, K and S beyond recommended
levels for irrigated ridge-till corn in Kansas
P2O5+K2O+S, lb/A1
Population
30+0+02
PPA
100+80+40 Response
grain yield, bu/A
Carr sandy loam, avg of 2000-2002
28,000
162
205
43
42,000
159
223
64
Crete silt loam, 2003
28,000
176
203
27
42,000
174
247
72
1
Plus 230 lb N/A with 2 splits (preplant, V4).
2 KSU recommendation.
Gordon (KSU), 2004
Bray P1 K
ppm
Carr
20
240
Crete
25
180
Site
Eng. Agr. Leandro Zancanaro
Pesquisador Fundação MT/PMA
Brazil
Potassium and soybean rust incidence
on sandy soil
- K,
+ K,
+ K,
+ fungicide + fungicide - fungicide
- K,
- fungicide
Nutrient X Disease Interactions
Border of the field
Nutrient – Disease Interaction Tour Group
Southern Brazil, Feb. 2005
Don Huber,
Purdue U.
T. Yamada,
Potafos
Bob Kremer,
USDA-ARS &
U. of Missouri
Paulo Castro,
U. Sao Paulo
Volker Romheld,
Hohenheim U.
(Germany)
Ismail Cakmak,
Sabanci U.
(Istanbul)
Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature
 Science, January 28, 2005
 Authors: Green, Cornell, Scharlemann and
Balmford (Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of Cambridge)
 Wildlife friendly farming vs land sparing
 “Empirical data on such density-yield functions
are sparse, but evidence from a range of taxa in
developing countries suggests that high-yield
farming may allow more species to persist.”
Zoologists & ecologists seeing improving
productivity as a solution to conservation of
biodiversity
Production of U.S. field crops: $62 billion
Production of horticultural crops: $41 billion
Ross Welch, 2004 … Farming for Health: the Future of
Agriculture
Are we confident of the yield and quality implications
of nutrient management for these crops?
The Known 50 Essential Nutrients for
Sustaining Human Life*
Water &
Energy (2)
Water
Carbs
Protein
(AAs) (9)
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine
Phenylalanine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine
Lipids-Fat Macro
s (7)
(FAs) (2)
Micro
s (17)
Vitamins
(13)
Linoleic
acid
Linolenic
acid
Fe,Zn
Cu,Mn
I, F
B, Se
Mo, Ni
Cr, V
Si, As
Li, Sn
Co (in
B12)
A, D, E, K
C (Ascorbic acid)
B1 (Thiamin)
B2 (Riboflavin)
B3 (Pantothenic acid)
Niacin
B6 (Pyridoxal)
Folate
Biotin
B12 (Cobalamin)
Na
K
Ca
Mg
S
P
Cl
*Numerous other beneficial substances in foods are also known to
contribute to good health.
Welch, 2004
Effects of N & K Fertilizers on Vitamin C
(mg/100g fr. wt.)
Vegetable
N1
N2
N3
Swiss chard
67.8
56.1
47.6
Kale, collards
113.0
112.0
66.0
Brussels-sprouts
112.0
101.0
93.0
Vegetable
K1
K2
K3
Swiss chard
49.9
56.1
59.3
Kale, collards
98.0
112.0
118.0
Brussels-sprouts
88.0
101.0
100.0
Data from Salunkhe and Deshpande,1991 as
summarized by Welch, 2004.
Fertilizing Crops for
Functional Foods,
2002 ASA Symposium
(isoflavones, lycopene, etc.)
Apples — P
Citrus — N, K
Cole crops — S, Se
Echinacea — N, P
Flax — N, P, K
Soybeans — K
Tomatoes — P, K
Watermelons — K
Productivity considerations
for nutrient management
 Yield, profitability, competitiveness





Basic calibration & optimization for
today’s systems
 Nutrients in holistic crop management
Crop/food quality for specific use
Meeting global food needs
Energy/biofuels
Sparing land for nature
A new fulcrum with greater potential to
advance and apply knowledge and
technology for nutrient management
Productivity/Environment
How do we build
a bigger fulcrum?
Nutrient
Management
Building a bigger fulcrum for nutrient
management
1. Sell the need internally
 Within departments, colleges
 Within companies
2. Sell the need externally
 To other departments, colleges, states,
legislatures, agencies, companies
 To potential partners in development and
financial support
Non-western examples
Commodity Group
 United Soybean Board by Foundation for
Agronomic Research (FAR)
 “Coordination Of Management Practices
Enhancing Total Efficiency (COMPETE)”
 Improved nutrient management as a means for
U.S. growers to compete with South American
growers.
 $620,000 over two years
 Eaten up in 2005 by Asian soybean rust
Foundation for Agronomic Research/PPI
Nebraska Corn Board
Fluid Fertilizer Foundation
IMC Global
Nebraska Soybean Board
UNL Department of Agronomy
P Fellowship Program
Kansas State University
Initiated Summer 2004
$40,000/yr; 10 yrs
Supporters: Agrium, Cargill,
IMC Global, Potash Corp, Simplot
Note: IMC Global and Cargill Crop Nutrition are now Mosaic
Building a bigger fulcrum for nutrient
management
1. Sell the need internally
2. Sell the need externally
3. Set as our objectives:
 Improvement of mechanistic understanding
that can address both production and
environmental issues
 Integration of existing knowledge bits into
usable management tools – a growing need
driven by technology and consolidation of
farms and agribusiness
Nutrient management today needs solutions
that simultaneously allow for improvement
of productivity & environmental impact
Productivity/Environment
Nutrient Management