Adding sustainability to productivity

28/11/2014 Adding sustainability to productivity Seminar on Smart Fertilization Bemesting in de 21e eeuw : Smart Fertilization 1  Prof. Martin ...
7 downloads 0 Views 5MB Size
28/11/2014

Adding sustainability to productivity

Seminar on Smart Fertilization

Bemesting in de 21e eeuw : Smart Fertilization

1

 Prof. Martin Kropff click in programme on 14.00-14.10  Rector Wageningen University

28/11/2014

Seminar on Smart Fertilization

Welcome: The commitment of WUR to Smart Fertilization

2

28/11/2014

 Prof. Rudy Rabbinge  Wageningen University

Seminar on Smart Fertilization

C.T. de Wit revisited; from fertilizer placement to smart fertilization

4

Smart nutrient use according to de Wit from theory in the fifties to adoption today Prof. dr ir Rudy Rabbinge Emeritus university professor Sustainable Development & Food Security ‘De Wit revisited’, Wageningen Nov. 28th 2014

Outline

1

Global food security

2

Contributions C.T. de Wit

3

Principles of Production Ecology

4

4 R’s

5

Conclusions

6

Food Security: currently plenty but skewed distribution

Future: increase production

agricultural production in next 40 years, as much as in the past 8,000 years

-6,000 BC

2050 AC

Demand

=

Population

Population

x

Diet

Grain equivalents per year

(billions)

(billion tonnes)

15

15

10 10

5

5

0 1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

diets in 2050 (medium population)

0

4 pillars of the food system

food system

10

Two times…

more

less

healthier

C.T. de Wit (1924-1993) 

A physical theory on placement of fertilizers (1953)

 

On competition (1960)



Photosynthesis of leaf canopies (1965)

 

Theorie en model (1968)

Ionic balance and growth of plants (1963)

Resource use efficiency in agriculture (1992)

12

A physical theory on placement of fertilizers (1953) Ub

Ur

Xb

Xr

Broad fertilization

Row fertilization

Ur = Ub  (Xr/Xb)a

On competition (1960) 150

O 100

O2

O1=k1(2e)Z1{[k1(2e)-1]z1+1}-1 M1

O1

O2= k2(1e)Z2{[k2(1e)-1]Z2+1}-1 M2

50

0

0

Z2

0.5

Z1

1

Ionic balance and growth of plants (1963) external alkaline effect

C+

external acidic effect

A-

C+ plant

soil solution decreasing [H+] + H

C+

A-

C+ A- increasing [H+] C+ H+ OH-

soil complex

H+

Photosynthesis of leaf canopies (1965)

Resource use efficiency in agriculture (1992)

to serve both agriculture and its environment

Costs ($)

minimum external costs per unit product added point of marginalization

costs of external inputs costs of internal resources

0

45°

0

Productivity goal : Yield ($)

marginal return

focus not on marginal returns of variable resources,

but towards the minimum of each production resource that is needed to allow maximum utilization of all other resources

Production-ecological principles & practice Limiting factors •water •nutrients (N,P,K)

yield increasing measures

Reducing factors •weeds •pests •diseases •pollutants yield protecting measures

Post-harvest losses •microbial •insects •rodents •waste

yield gap

Defining factors •CO2 •radiation •temperature •crop genetics

yield level

bio techno logy

postharvesttechnology

• storage • packing

potential production

attainable production

actual production

PRODUCTION SITUATION

available production

18

Production-ecological principles & practice Limiting factors •energy •proteins •minerals •water yield increasing measures

Reducing factors •stress •pests •diseases •pollutants yield protecting measures

Post-harvest losses •microbial •waste

yield gap

Defining factors •temperature •genetics

yield level

bio techno logy

postharvesttechnology

• storage • packing

potential production

attainable production

actual production

PRODUCTION SITUATION

available production

19

Production-ecological principles & practice Limiting factors •O2 •proteins •minerals •vitamins yield increasing measures

Reducing factors •stress •pests •diseases •pollutants yield protecting measures

Post-harvest losses •microbial •waste

yield gap

Defining factors •temperature •genetics

yield level

bio techno logy

postharvesttechnology • storage • packing

potential production

attainable production

actual production

PRODUCTION SITUATION

available production

20

Defining factors techno- •infrastructure logy •land rights innovations

Limiting factors •price ratios •credit use •skills & knowledge

market education extension

potential

attainable

Reducing factors •conflicts •labour use •governance

health policy ethics contracts insurance

institutional gap

performance level

Socio-economic principles & practice

actual

PRODUCTION ENABLING ENVIRONMENT after: R. Ruben 2014

21

Interventions & issues at different levels

socio-economic factors

crop

farm

region

bio-physical factors

continent

globe

Flow diagram: potential production Defining factors bio

Limiting factors

Reducing factors

techno logy

yield increasing measures

potential production

attainable production

yield protecting measures

actual production

Flow diagram: water limited production Defining factors bio

Limiting factors

Reducing factors

techno logy

yield increasing measures

potential production

attainable production

yield protecting measures

actual production

Flow diagram: water&nutrient lim. production Defining factors bio

Limiting factors

Reducing factors

techno logy

yield increasing measures

potential production

attainable production

yield protecting measures

actual production

Flow diagram: actual production Defining factors bio

Limiting factors

Reducing factors

techno logy

yield increasing measures

potential production

attainable production

weed: - water competition

weed: - nutrient competition

yield protecting measures

actual production

Terrestrial production

2%

0.25%

98%

Global Food Potential

146 billion people (de Wit, 1966)

120 billion people (MOIRA, 1977) 44 billion people (WRR, 1992)

Wheat yield EU (water limited)

non-suitable soil

3 5

ton grain/ha

7

(dry matter)

>9

WRR, 1992

Production situation & resource input yield level (kg output ha-1) potential attainable actual

resource use efficiency (kg output kg-1 input)

30

To share and to spare

agriculture

production ecology • •

high productivity efficient resource use

integration

resource ecology • •

multifunctional secure local resources

nature

evolution ecology • •

ecological integrity biodiversity

Discontinuities wheat yields (NL) ton grain ha-1 10

Green revolution

8 6 4 2 0 1875

1900

1925

1950

1975

2000

2025

courtesy: B.Rijk (with data from Wit et al 1988, Knibbe 1993) 32

Expanding green revolutions ton grain ha-1 6

Rice

Maize

start African discontinuities ?

Wheat

4 3

1900

1925

1950

1975

Africa

SE Asia

0 1875

SE Asia

1

Indonesia

2

UK USA

yield (ton/ha)

5

2000

2025

33

Global production, acreage, N-use

tons ton/ha

300

50

200 ha

100 0 1950

Source: FAOstat

100

fertilizer N (billion kg)

Index value

400

1960

1970

1980 1990 year

2000

2010

2020

34

4

R’s in fertilizer use

35

Other R’s in fertilizer use

Reduce emissions& spillage

Resource Use Efficiently

Recover

Recycle

36

Precision in time, place and amount

Farming bots N - application Imaging result with high resultion Agro drone monitoring crop growth

Rowbot, 2014 unibots.com

Weeding EUROP: European Roborics technology Platform

Land cleared for crops [Gha]

N use and global acreage

60 80 100

120 140

100

150 200 250 Global N use in 2050 [Mtonnes]

160

300

after: Tilman et al., 2011

Conclusions

 Technical sciences offer opportunities  Sufficient food of good quality possible  Sustainable systems may cause win-win-win-win situations  Ecoliteracy is the basis

de Wit applied on Mars ..? Thanks for your attention

Marsian soil for growing food crops Wamelink (WageningenUR)

28/11/2014

 Dr. Joachim Lammel  Vice-president Research &

Development YARA  Oslo, Norway

Seminar on Smart Fertilization

Profit from placement

42

Yara N Fertilization Strategy To strive for better yields and higher N use efficiency Joachim Lammel , Yara International ASA

Target: Highest grower profitability at optimum fertilizer rate Optimum fertilizer rate:  best practice manure application as base dressing

Mineral N fertilizer to adjust N demand within growing season Challenge: Optimum N fertilizer rate changes from field to field, year to year and even within fields

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 44

maximum profit

optimum fertilizer rate

The optimum fertilizer rate can only be measured in N-response trials Grain yield (t/ha)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Economic optimum N rate at 213 kg N /ha

0

50

100

150

200

N Fertilizer Rate (kg N/ha)

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 45

250

300

In different fields the same yield was achieved at different N fertilizer rates

110 100

Optimum N rate:

144

180

225 kg N/ha

Yield, dt/ha

90 80 70

60 50 40 30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

N Fertilization, kg N/ha

Yield response curve from trials with winter wheat at 3 fields

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 46

The grain yield does not indicate the required fertilizer rate 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

Yield t ha-1

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Nopt Fertilizer Rate kg N ha-1 Yield data and optimum N fertilizer rates from 248 field trials with cereals 1996-2013

Annual variability in crop growth and N supply from organic soil N influence N fertilizer demand 250

kg N/ha Year D, Field 4

200

Year C, Field 3

N uptake crop

150

Fertilizer demand

100

Year B, Field 2 50

Year A, Field 1 0 Feb

March

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 48

April

May

June

July

Aug

N supply from soil & organic

Annual changes of the optimum N fertilizer rate in the same field with the same crop rotation Crop: Winter wheat, pre-crop Potatoes, Longterm trial Rothamsted, UK Optimum N Fertilizer Rate (kg/ha)

Maximum

240 225 210 195

Average = 199 kg N 180

9,4

8,4

9,5

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 49

8,8

8,3

8,1

8,9

9,8

Mimimum

20 01

20 00

19 99

19 98

19 97

19 96

19 95

19 94

19 93

19 92

19 91

19 90

165

9,7

9,8

9,0

6,3

Yield t/ha

Yara crop nutrition approach: “from mass-balance to flexible N management” Principle

 The nutritional status of the crop determines the fertilizer application rate and timing

Benefits

fertilizer to the crop

 Higher nutrient use efficiency because nutrients applied when needed

Prerequisites

 efficient fertilizer products  balanced nutrition and crop focus  Foliar fertilizers, Fertigation  diagnostic tools

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 50

Fertilizer application in several N rates reduce the risk of N losses • Better synchronisation of N fertilizer application to crop N uptake increases the nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency kg N ha-1 250

One N application several N applications

200

N uptake 150

100 50

0 J

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 51

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

Influence of a split application of N fertilizer on yield of winter cereals (1 N dressing vs 3 N dressings)  

Average of 43 field trials (38 x wheat, 3 x barley, 2 x rye) Same N fertilizer rate in both treatments, average 186 kg N ha-1

Yield (t ha-1) 9,5 9,27 9,0

9,00

8,5

8,0 1 x CAN CAN = Calcium Ammonium Nitrate

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 52

3 x CAN

Nitrogen fertilizers that contain nitrate have a better nitrogen use efficiency

NUE (%)

100

No nitrate

25 % nitrate

50% nitrate

100% nitrate 93

90

89 85

85

Urea

UAN

80

70

CAN

CN

Avg. of 15 field trials in UK with winter wheat at a N supply of (160 kg/ha)

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 53

Flexible N management with crop analysis help to adjust the N rate during growing season 250

Plant analysis + N application

kg N/ha

200

Plant analysis + N-application

150

100

50

1. Base dressing

0 Feb

March

April

May

June

July

Aug

The optimum N rate is not known at the start of the growing season Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 54

The N-Tester 

A reliable tool to determine crop nitrogen demand



Easy to handle, prompt results



Applicable to a wide range of crops



It enable:



Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 55



decision about optimum N fertilizer rate



decision about optimum N application time

Approved in several European countries

High variation in soil characteristics can be observed on large fields • large fields can even been seen as a consolidation of several single fields

~ 1 km

diagram of different soil types, field size 36 ha, Golzow farm

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 56

Mineral N content in spring can variy a lot within large fields

Mineral N content (0-60 cm soil depth), Golzow farm, WW, 36 ha,

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 57

How can the N content of crops as a result of different soil N supply be measure?

• • • •

=> Analysis of many plants => fast identification of spatial variability, => measurement just before or during N fertilization => measuring process shall not slow down N application

Conclusion: optical, remote sensing crop analysis

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 58

Yara N-Sensor® - variable rate N fertilization

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 59

Yield response to increasing N fertilizer rates show a large difference at 3 spots in a field 12

Yield* (t ha-1)

11,5 11 10,5 10 9,5 9 8,5 0

50

100

150

200

250

N fertilizer rate (2. + 3. N rate), kg ha-1

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

1st N rate uniform 70 kg N ha-1 Map of relative crop biomass in spring 0m

50 m

100 m

150 m

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 60

200 m

*costs for N fertilization considered

N-Sensor detects areas of different organic N supply and adjusts mineral N fertilizer rates Spectral Index

Sensor Map

High

Without organic Cattle slurry Pig slurry 0m

100 m 200 m 300 m 400 m

Low

N [kg N/ha]

N-Application-Map

100 90 80

Winter Barley, N-Sensor-measurement and N-application on the 25th of May Source: AgriCon, Germany

0m

100 m 200 m 300 m 400 m

70 60 50 40

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 61

Example how such tools like the N-Sensor can improve yield and nitrogen use efficiency 10% + 6%

5%

grain yield

0%

Farmer practice

-5% -10%

N application rate

-15%

- 14% Yield and N application average of 23 trials with winter wheat in Germany

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 62

Summary: 

A yield target is not a good indicator for the required N fertilizer rate



The Nitrogen fertilizer rate depend on growth conditions and on N supply from the organic N pool.



Plant analysis is a good tool to determine N fertilizer demand



Several tools exist to conduct in field plant analysis and to adjust the N rate within the growing season



Precision farming technologies help to adjust the N fertilizer rate even within a field to optimize crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency

Date: 2014-11-25 - Page: 63

Click in programme 14.50-15.10 uur  Wageningen University  Alterra

28/11/2014

Seminar on Smart Fertilization

Technology and information management of precision fertilization

64

28/11/2014

Bemesting in de 21e eeuw : Smart Fertilization Adding sustainability to productivity

Seminar on Smart Fertilization

And Information market!

117