Fertilizer Best Management Practices

267 Pages·3.046 MB·English

F
e
r
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
B
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
Fertilizer Best
Management Practices
General Principles,
Strategy for their Adoption and
Voluntary Initiatives vs Regulations
Papers presented at the IFA International Workshop
on Fertilizer Best Management Practices
7-9 March 2007, Brussels, Belgium
International Fertilizer Industry Association
Paris, France, 2007
The designation employed and the presentation of material in this
information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the International Fertilizer Industry
Association. This includes matters pertaining to the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Fertilizer Best Management Practices
First edition, IFA, Paris, France, August 2007
Copyright 2007 IFA. All rights reserved
ISBN 2-9523139-2-X
The publication can be downloaded from IFA’s web site.
To obtain paper copies, contact IFA.
28, rue Marbeuf, 75008 Paris, France
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[email protected] www.fertilizer.org
III
Contents
Part 1. General principles of fertilizer best management practices
Nutrient use effi ciency – measurement and management 1
A. Dobermann
Right product, right rate, right time and right place … the
foundation of best management practices for fertilizer 29
T.L. Roberts
Balanced fertilization for sustainable use of plant nutrients 33
L. Cissé
Site-specifi c nutrient management 47
R.J. Buresh and C. Witt
Integrated farming and integrated plant nutrient management 57
C. Drummond
"Teaspoon feeding": precise plant nutrition through advanced
application methods 67
E. Barak and S. Raban
Fertilizer best management practices in the context of product
stewardship 71
J. Lammel
Can we defi ne a global framework within which fertilizer best
management practices can be adapted to local conditions? 77
P.E. Fixen
Fertilizer best management practices: what level of adaptation to
local conditions is realistic in a developing country context? 87
J. Ryan
IV Fertilizer best management practices
Part 2. Strategy for the adoption of fertilizer best management practices
Adoption of fertilizer best management practices: the need for a
sociological approach 99
F.G. Palis, R.J. Buresh, G.R. Singleton and R.J. Flor
Changing farmers’ behavior in developing countries for a wider
adoption of fertilizer best management practices – experience in
Thailand 111
K. Soitong
Farmers’ behavior and codes of fertiliser best management practices
in India – viewpoint of Tata Chemicals Ltd 121
B.B. Singh
Preliminary synthesis of farmers’ attitudes and preferences towards
nutrient application in China and India 127
H. Magen, P. Imas and S.K. Bansal
Stewardship of crop protection products: maximising benefi ts and
minimising risks 139
K.A. Jones
Part 3. Voluntary initiatives vs regulations
An economic evaluation of best management practices for crop
nutrients in Canadian agriculture 145
R. Larson
Fertilizer best management practices in South America’s agricultural
systems 153
R. Melgar and E. Daher
Vountary farm management qualifi cation under the French offi cial
“Agriculture Raisonnée” scheme 163
P. Eveillard
Voluntary initiatives undertaken by the fertiliser industry of New
Zealand 167
H. Furness
Fertcare® – putting best practice into stewardship 177
N. Drew
V
Principles, dissemination and performance of fertilizer best
management practices developed in China 193
F.S. Zhang, M.S. Fan and W.F. Zhang
Voluntary initiatives and regulations for fertiliser best management
practices in India 203
R.K. Tewatia
Fertilizer best management practices in Pakistan 213
N. Ahmad
Fertilizer best management practices in Southeast Asia 221
R.J. Buresh, C. Witt and J.M.C. Pasuquin
Global assessment of the situation of fertilizer best management
practices 231
A. Krauss
Possible entry points for action, an FAO overview 239
J. Poulisse
Strategies for controlling nitrogen emissions from agriculture:
regulatory, voluntary and economic approaches 245
M.A. Sutton, J.W. Erisman and O. Oenema
VI Fertilizer best management practices
Acknowledgements
Th e IFA Executive Committee decided in 2006 to launch an initiative on fertilizer best
management practices (FBMPs). One component of that initiative was the organiza-
tion of an International Workshop on Fertilizer Best Management Practices, which
took place from 7 to 9 March 2007 in Brussels, Belgium. Th e workshop gathered some
40 participants from all continents and relevant stakeholder categories. It was aimed
at (i) defi ning the general principles of FBMPs and the strategy for their wider adop-
tion; (ii) defi ning the role of the fertilizer industry in developing and promoting FBMPs
and listing priority areas for action; (iii) exchanging information on experiences;
(iv) reviewing achievements and identifying gaps; and (v) understanding the actors and
identifying the key partners. Th e workshop was conducted under the leadership of the
Convenor of the IFA Task Force on Fertilizer Best Management Practices, Mr. R. Sinha
from DSCL, India.
Th is book is a collection of all the papers submitted by the speakers. In addition to this
book, all the papers and slides presented at the workshop are available in PDF format on
IFA’s website at www.fertilizer.org/ifa/publicat/bap/2007_brussels_fb mp.asp. No paper
has been received for three contributions presented at the workshop, but the correspon-
ding slides can be downloaded online.
Th e papers published in this book have been reviewed and edited by A. Krauss,
K. Isherwood and P. Heff er. Many thanks to C. Aholou-Pütz and H. Ginet for the layout
of the book and of the graphics in preparation for printing.
Part 1. General principles of FBMPs 1
Nutrient use effi ciency – measurement
and management
A. Dobermann
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA; [email protected]
Nutrients in the global scheme
Mineral fertilizers have sustained world agriculture and thus global population and
wealth growth for more than 100 years (Smil, 2001; Stewart et al., 2005). Th eir contribu-
tion to increasing crop yields has spared millions of hectares of natural ecosystems that
otherwise would have been converted to agriculture (Balmford et al., 2005). However,
lacking, imbalanced, inappropriate or excessive use of nutrients in agricultural systems
remains a concern. Nutrient mining is a major cause for low crop yields in parts of the
developing world, particularly Africa. In other situations, nutrients such as nitrogen
(N) and phosphorus (P) oft en move beyond the bounds of the agricultural fi eld because
the management practices used fail to achieve good congruence between nutrient sup-
ply and crop nutrient demand (van Noordwijk and Cadisch, 2002). If left unchecked,
such losses may bear signifi cant costs to society (Mosier et al., 2001). Hence, increasing
nutrient use effi ciency continues to be a major challenge for world agriculture.
Th is paper tries to summarize how the use effi ciency of N, P and potassium (K) from
mineral fertilizer is commonly defi ned and measured, what needs to be considered for
interpreting such values, and how it can be improved through soil, crop and fertili-
zer management. It focuses on cereal systems because those consume the bulk of the
world’s fertilizer, but the principles discussed are similar in all agricultural crops. Where
possible, attempts are made to discuss diff erences between developed and developing
countries. Two key messages emerge: (i) Nutrient use effi ciencies measured under prac-
tical farming conditions are mostly lower than those reported from research experi-
ments, but information on current levels of fertilizer use and nutrient use effi ciency by
diff erent crops, cropping systems and world regions remains insuffi cient; (ii) Numerous
technologies for increasing nutrient use effi ciency exist. Th ey have been evaluated tho-
roughly, but adoption by farmers is lagging behind.
Measuring nutrient use effi ciency
Agronomic indices for short-term assessment of nutrient use effi ciency
Table 1 summarizes a set of simple indices that are frequently used in agronomic re-
search to assess the effi ciency of applied fertilizer (Novoa and Loomis, 1981; Cassman
et al., 2002), mainly for assessing the short-term crop response to a nutrient. A practical
example is illustrated in Figure 1. Other indices are sometimes used (Gourley et al.,
1993; Huggins and Pan, 1993), but they have no additional advantages for understan-
ding fertilizer best management practices (FBMPs). More detailed studies on the fate
2 Fertilizer best management practices
Table 1. Indices of nutrient use effi ciency, their calculation using the difference method,
and their interpretation.
Index Calculation Interpretation Nitrogen in cereals
RE = Apparent crop RE=(U – Uo)/F • RE depends on the 0.30–0.50 kg/kg;
recovery effi ciency congruence between plant 0.50–0.80 kg/kg
of applied nutrient demand and nutrient release in well-managed
(kg increase in N from fertilizer. systems, at low
uptake per kg N • RE is affected by the ap- levels of N use,
applied) plication method (amount, or at low soil N
timing, placement, N form) supply
and factors that determine
the size of the crop nutrient
sink (genotype, climate,
plant density, abiotic/biotic
stresses).
PE = Physiological PE=(Y– Yo)/(U– Uo) • Ability of a plant to trans- 40–60 kg/kg;
effi ciency of ap- form nutrients acquired >50 kg/kg in
plied N from fertilizer into economic well-managed
(kg yield increase yield (grain). systems, at low
per kg increase in • Depends on genotype, levels of N use,
N uptake from fer- environment and manage- or at low soil N
tilizer) ment. supply
• Low PE suggests sub-op-
timal growth (nutrient de-
fi ciencies, drought stress,
heat stress, mineral toxici-
ties, pests).
IE = Internal utili- IE=Y/U • Ability of a plant to trans- 30–90 kg/kg;
zation effi ciency of form nutrients acquired 55-65 kg/kg is
a nutrient from all sources (soil, fer- the optimal ran-
(kg yield per kg nu- tilizer) into economic yield ge for balanced
trient uptake) (grain). nutrition at high
• Depends on genotype, yield levels
environment and manage-
ment.
• A very high IE suggests de-
fi ciency of that nutrient.
• Low IE suggests poor inter-
nal nutrient conversion due
to other stresses (nutrient
defi ciencies, drought stress,
heat stress, mineral toxici-
ties, pests).
Part 1. General principles of FBMPs 3
AE = Agronomic AE=(Y – Yo)/F or • Product of nutrient reco- 10–30 kg/kg;
effi ciency of ap- AE=RE x PE very from mineral or organic >25 kg/kg in
plied nutrient fertilizer (RE) and the effi - well-managed
(kg yield increase ciency with which the plant systems, at low
per kg nutrient ap- uses each additional unit of levels of N use,
plied) nutrient (PE). or at low soil N
• AE depends on manage- supply
ment practices that affect
RE and PE.
PFP = Partial fac- PFP=Y/F or • Most important for farmers 40–80 kg/kg;
tor productivity of PFP=(Yo/F) + AE because it integrates the use >60 kg/kg in
applied nutrient effi ciency of both indigenous well-managed
(kg harvested pro- and applied nutrients. systems, at low
duct per kg nu- • High indigenous soil nu- levels of N use,
trient applied) trient supply (Yo) and high or at low soil N
AE are equally important for supply
PFP.
F – amount of (fertilizer) nutrient applied (kg/ha)
Y – crop yield with applied nutrients (kg/ha)
Yo – crop yield (kg/ha) in a control treatment with no N
U – total plant nutrient uptake in aboveground biomass at maturity (kg/ha) in a plot that
received fertilizer
U – total nutrient uptake in aboveground biomass at maturity (kg/ha) in a plot that received
no fertilizer
of nutrients in agro-ecosystems oft en involve isotopes, which are particularly useful for
understanding loss, immobilization, fi xation and release mechanisms.
In fi eld studies, nutrient use effi ciencies are either calculated based on diff erences in
crop yield and/or nutrient uptake between fertilized plots and an unfertilized control
(‘diff erence method’, Table 1), or by using isotope-labeled fertilizers to estimate crop and
soil recovery of applied nutrients. Time scale is usually one cropping season. Spatial sca-
le for measurement is mostly a fi eld or plot. For the same soil and cropping conditions,
nutrient use effi ciency generally decreases with increasing nutrient amount added (Fi-
gure 1). Crop yield (Y) and plant nutrient accumulation/uptake (U) typically increase
with increasing nutrient addition (F) and gradually approach a ceiling (Figures 1a and
1c). Th e level of this ceiling is determined by the climatic-genetic yield potential. At low
levels of nutrient supply, rates of increase in yield and nutrient uptake are large because
the nutrient of interest is the primary factor limiting growth (de Wit, 1992). As nutrient
supply increases, incremental yield gains become smaller because yield determinants
other than that nutrient become more limiting as the yield potential is approached.
Because each of the indices in Table 1 has a diff erent interpretation value, fertilizer
research should include measurements of several indices to understand the factors go-
verning nutrient uptake and fertilizer effi ciency, to compare short-term nutrient use ef-
fi ciency in diff erent environments, and to evaluate diff erent management strategies. Th e