SCRSF New AG International e-book January 2021
When preparing this e-book, I recalled the words of my predecessor, the inimitable Jean-Pierre Leymonie in his opening remarks to the 2010 New AG...
<b>SCRSFs – the next generation
of fertilizers and beyond
New AG International e-book series
Sponsored by: <a href="https://www.basf.com/">BASF</a> <a href="https://www.icl-group.com/">ICL Group</a>
<a href="http://www.milliken.com/">Milliken</a> <a href="https://www.saviolife.com/en/">Saviolife</a>
Welcome to
New AG International’s
e-book:
SCRSFs – the next generation of fertilizers and beyond
When preparing this e-book, I recalled the words of my predecessor, the inimitable Jean-Pierre Leymonie in his opening remarks to the 2010 New AG International / IFA conference on SCRSFs. Referring to the reasons behind the conference he said:
“The first one, the main one indeed, is that this conference addresses a topic of increasing importance in many countries around the world. The concern in the farming community about not wasting expensive nutrients and the overall concern in the general public about preserving the environment are almost naturally leading to an increased interest for enhanced efficiency fertilizers and a growing market for these products.”
A decade on, this is just as relevant today. The reasons have not gone away. If anything, they are more acute.
But what has changed? Sustainability has risen higher up the priority list in many countries and this has increased the pressure to find solutions to support growers with higher efficiency crop nutrients. One industry trend over the last decade is that conventional fertilizer companies have increasingly moved into the space for SCRSFs. And to bring this right up to date, the EPA-USDA teamed up in August 2020 to launch a competition to tease out and accelerate the latest developments in enhanced efficiency fertilizers.
We begin this e-book with an exclusive interview with Taylor Pursell, whose family name is synonymous with controlled release fertilizers. Taylor and I covered much ground in our extended Zoom call. Among the many topics discussed, Taylor touched on how adoption for controlled release fertilizers can be extended:
“We need to find ways to get the more efficient controlled release technologies used in specialty markets applicable in broad acre agriculture. The key will be reducing the costs to levels that have financial paybacks to farmers for adoption.”
Taylor also welcomed the EPA-USDA initiative: “I’m optimistic our industry is going to figure improved nutrient efficiency out. A lot of people are trying to get their arms around it.”
One of the supporting organisations to the competition is The Fertilizer Institute. New AG International spoke to Lara Moody of The Fertilizer Institute to find out more about this novel initiative.
Much gratitude is also extended to our sponsors of this e-book. These companies highlight the different technologies employed in the SCRSF sector. We hear from each of them BASF, ICL, Milliken, and Saviolife.
You will also find an overview of our SCRSF track at the New AG International Brazil conference in November 2020. And we’ve added a feature that acts as a primer, or introduction, to SCRSFs to help you get your head around all the acronyms!
From the team here at New AG International, we hope you enjoy this e-book. We will be following up on many of the themes presented here at our SCRSF Digital Week in 15-18 March. Sign-up is free. Check the New AG International website for further details.
Luke Hutson
Editor-in-Chief
New AG International
Exclusive Interview with Taylor Pursell - Pursell Agri-tech
There’s a small area of Alabama that is synonymous with fertilizer developments, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and nearby is a company with a long history in coated fertilizers – formerly Pursell Technologies and now Pursell Agri-Tech. In 2017, Stamicarbon - whose granular urea technology is in 1 out of 2 urea plants around the world - took a stake in this company based in Sylacauga. Together they are looking to build the next generation of fertilizers.
In this exclusive interview for the
New AG International e-book on SCRSFs, Taylor Pursell, Chairman
of Pursell Agri-Tech, talks to
Editor-in-Chief Luke Hutson on the role that enhanced efficiency fertilizers can play in global agriculture.
Interviews often start with
a description of the venue, a few comments on the decoration or the drink that the interviewee ordered. But in these pandemic days, we’re more likely to talk about the
Zoom background.
Taylor Pursell, Pursell Agri-tech
Taylor Pursell’s was a tulip garden from the Netherlands. And this was a point of connection. We met at the Stamicarbon Future Day in Utrecht, Netherlands, held in April 2019. His background picture for Zoom was taken the next day at Keukenhof Gardens.
In his presentation, Pursell showed a timeline of breakthroughs in fertilizer technology (see chart). The striking thing about this chart – and its impact came precisely because it was in chart format - was that it has been some decades since a major step-change has been made. Rather mischievously, Pursell annotated the chart ‘Mind the Gap’ – because it’s a bit more than a gap in terms of time. Ammonium phosphate was the last major fertilizer development in 1959 from
the chart. When we reconnect, Pursell points out that in the commodity fertilizer world the capital investment is huge. Payback periods will typically be over 20 years or more.
Chart showing Diammonium phosphate (DAP) as the last major fertilizer development, in 1959. Source: Pursell Agri-Tech
Tech on the Tennessee
Technology has been in the blood of the Pursell business almost since its inception, founded by Pursell’s great grandfather in 1904.
But how did a coated fertilizer business become established in Alabama? Pursell and the town of Sylacauga are interlinked but you need a bit of background and a map to see the picture clearly.
Pursell Agri-Tech is in Sylacauga, and it is 2 miles down the road from the original Pursell Technologies site.
This facility has passed through several hands.
In 2006, Agrium (now Nutrien) acquired Pursell Technologies and took over the site. Agrium then sold the business to Koch Agronomic Services in 2014, and in 2019 Koch sold on to Harrell’s Fertilizer Inc who will continue the production of the POLYON brand.
Close by is Muscle Shoals and the National Fertilizer Development Center (NFDC), which was part of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA was the site of the first Haber Bosch production of ammonia in the USA in 1918, and this was used to make ammonium nitrate (Ref 1). TVA was where sulphur coated urea (SCU) was developed in the 1960s. The fertilizer complex at TVA became the NFDC in the 1960s and then the site for the International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC) in 1974. In May 1990 the large-scale fertilizer production facilities at TVA were closed and replaced by small-scale prototype plants (Ref 2).
“We were close to the TVA laboratory, so we were their guinea pigs,” recalls Pursell. “My grandfather and father were looking at [fertilizer] through a different lens.”
Pursell even remembers loading one of the first bags of sulphur coated urea from TVA onto a truck for the business.
Turf to agriculture
For its first 50 years, the Pursell business was a supplier of fertilizer for row crops in Alabama. It then moved into the specialty fertilizer business for consumer products, turf (golf courses) and horticulture, becoming the second largest supplier in the USA, behind The Scotts/Miracle Gro Company (which sold its Osmocote coated fertilizer business to ICL). In 2006, Agrium (now Nutrien) acquired Pursell Technologies to enhance its technology base within its ESN controlled release business segment.
So Pursell Agri-Tech is a new incarnation. But still – just to repeat – in Sylacauga.
Although it still serves the turf, horticulture and consumer markets, Pursell Agri-Tech’s focus is on broad acre agricultural markets. Along with Stamicarbon it has developed a range of products that are designed for agricultural markets – with the intention of greater nutrient use efficiency (NUE) at cost that provide paybacks to farmers from higher yields. Pursell believes the experience of handling coated fertilizers in specialty markets can be transferred to the agricultural markets.
“We need to find ways to get the more efficient controlled release technologies used in specialty markets applicable in broad acre agriculture. The key will be reducing the costs to levels that have financial paybacks to farmers for adoption.”
We come back to that point several times during the conversation – namely, the cost per unit.
Pursell cites the slim margin for corn at today’s price of around $3.65/bu. “There has to be a payback to the farmer, and this is only going to happen with new, next generation nutrient delivery technologies.”
There has to be a payback to the farmer, and this is only going to happen with new, next generation nutrient delivery technologies.
Taylor Pursell
The question that needs to be asked, Pursell suggests, is simple: are the coated products at a low enough cost to have a shot at agriculture?
He suggests a significant reduction in production cost is required for coated fertilizers.
They key here would be to bring the coating cost down, says Pursell. Reducing costs will be a result of lowering coating levels, reducing capital costs per ton of capacity as well as supply chain (producing coated fertilizers closer to the substrate producer or the farmer).
Partnering Stamicarbon
Pursell Agri-Tech and Stamicarbon have built a commercial demonstration plant at the base in Sylacauga, where they currently produce the company’s coated range, which includes PurYield, for field crops, PurKote for specialty markets and PurForm for fruit and vegetables. Stamicarbon and Pursell are developing a production technique for using urea as a carrier for micronutrients as presented at its Future Day. Stamicarbon has also improved the digitisation of its urea plants leading to greater efficiency and cost savings.
Efficiency gains
Enhanced efficiency fertilizers, or EEFs, are seen as a key tool to increase nutrient use efficiency (NUE), and mitigate nutrient losses that can harm the environment.
Pursell takes nitrogen as an example. He says the NUE of nitrogen globally (N) is around 50%, so 1 out of every 2 lb applied will be wasted. And that’s an estimate for the USA. He suggests it’s higher for other parts of the world: for Africa and Southeast Asia it is estimated to be as high as 7 out of 10 lbs of N being lost. This has a huge financial and environmental impact on farmers around the world, notes Pursell.
In very broad terms, if you assume an approximate global consumption of urea of 160 million product tonnes, that is 80 million tonnes lost, which at $400 per tonne, is a potential loss of $32 bn.
Pursell says that the phosphorous industry also has major challenges, adding that only a very small amount of mined phosphorous ever gets to our food. The majority is lost by running off into fresh waterways or is tied up in soils. Since phosphorous is a non-renewable resource, it must be conserved says Pursell.
There are also the labour-saving factors. Pursell says coated potash is used for cotton. “Cotton needs about a third of its potassium in the last 30 to 45 days of growth for maximum quality. So, coating allows you to apply at planting and avoiding late season aerial applications of potash,” he explains.
But a major factor for coating fertilizers is the local climate conditions. He explains that in South Florida where there is more rain and higher temperatures, more coating is required, and what might last 30 days in Florida, might last 60 days in Wisconsin due to the moisture and temperature conditions.
Competition time
In August 2020, a competition was launched through an EPA-USDA partnership to find the next generation of Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers (EFFs) for use in corn production.
Pursell was complimentary and said he takes his hat off to the organisers which included The Fertilizer Institute, The Nature Conservancy, the National Corn Growers Association as well as EPA and USDA. They are trying to guide the industry without regulation, he says enthusiastically. When it comes to improving the environmental load of fertilizers, Pursell observes that the new CEOs of many of the large fertilizer companies are aligned. He notices that the large fertilizer companies are now adopting ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) policies to become more sustainable companies. He doubts if such a competition would have been possible 20 years ago.
“I’m optimistic our industry is going to figure improved nutrient efficiency out. A lot of people are trying to get their arms around it.”
Combined futures
One aspect that will no doubt come out in the competition is the approach between coated products and stabilised nitrogen products.
“Most coated fertilizers are sold in a blend. If fertilizer on corn contains 30 units of N – then coated urea might account for 75%, and uncoated urea another 25%. The 25% uncoated urea may also be inhibited to reduce volatilization. It probably needs a combination of technologies…each have their place… I don’t think it’s one or the other.”
Products adding carbon back to the soil was another function that Pursell found of interest. He expects regenerative agriculture to be a major part of the future in improving soil health. “We must protect and improve our soils.”
How about putting a microbe on with the coating? Pursell Agri-Tech does not have a commercial product yet. “But our coating process could be good [for this application]. Our technologies use lower temperatures allowing for including microbial products.”
Pursell also looks to the wider benefits of fertilizers, such as micronutrient fortification. As well as soil health, Pursell says fertilizers have a part to play in human health, citing the well-known examples of fertilizer incorporating trace elements, such as zinc and selenium. He notes that there is a lot of research going on to improve the nutrient density of food as well as biofortification of food with micronutrients (e.g., vitamins) unavailable in developing countries.
“What I hope to see in my lifetime is a shift to more nutrient efficiency resulting in higher yields, healthier foods that contain essential micronutrients, and at a low enough cost that it is a no brainer for the farmer to adopt.” ●
What I hope to see in my lifetime is a shift to more nutrient efficiency resulting in higher yields, healthier foods that contain essential micronutrients, and at a low enough cost that it is a no brainer for the farmer to adopt.
Taylor Pursell
Photo caption: Pursell Agri-Tech and its partner Stamicarbon opened a new fertilizer coating facility in Sylacauga, Alabama, in June 2018. Owned by Pursell Agri-Tech, the plant will produce a range of controlled-release fertilizers for various market segments, including turf and ornamental through to broad-acres.
Reference
Ref1 Ammonium nitrate reference: https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.al1051.sheet/?sp=6
Ref2 Muscle Shoals Reservation Redevelopment
Prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority,
November 2011
Interview with
The Fertilizer Institute -
Lara Moody -
Next Gen Competition
Joint EPA-USDA competition launched in U.S. for enhanced efficiency fertilizers
A joint EPA-USDA competition launched in the U.S. for enhanced efficiency fertilizers signals the beginning of a search to find the next generation of fertilizers. Slow- and controlled-release and stabilized fertilizers (SCRSFs) are likely to play a significant role is this quest.
A competition to find the next generation of enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs) for use in corn production has been launched through an EPA-USDA partnership, in collaboration with other industry bodies.
The entry details of the two competitions under the Next Gen Fertilizer Challenges were presented in a webinar on 24 September 2020. The official start date was 26 August. The supporting agencies are The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).
The aim of the two competitions is to stimulate the development and uptake of affordable EEFs to reduce the environmental impacts of corn production.
The first competition is for EEFs currently on the market or near to market launch. Companies, or “solvers”, as the entrants are called, submit their product to the judging panel, providing evidence how the product reaches the environmental and agronomic requirements.
The environmental requirements include reduction in ammonia volatilization, N2O emissions, run-off and leaching of nitrogen and/or phosphorus.
The purpose of the EEFs: Environmental and Agronomic Challenge is to identify the EEFs that meet or exceed these requirements. There is no age restriction on the products already on the market, and in both competitions the solvers maintain all IP rights. The judging panel consists of members from industry, academia and relevant agencies.
The agronomic benefits must be specifically for corn, and the product compatible with current machinery and practices. Submissions closed 30 October. Those that are short-listed will be recognized as Stage 1 winners, and they will be invited to participate in a greenhouse trial (Stage 2) in 2021, and following those results there is advancement to field trials (Stage 3). There is no cash price for this competition. Winners of Stage 1 receive recognition, although it was made clear in the webinar Q&As that this is not an endorsement, and these winners will be invited to a showcasing event, with a date to be announced.
The second competition has been given the title of Next Gen Fertilizer Innovations Challenge. As explained in the webinar, this competition is looking to identify technology not currently on the market and can be more conceptual in nature. The EPA website states these entries may include “technology concepts that are not traditional EEFs and not in commercial use as a fertilizer.”
Solvers need to present an idea for an innovative EEF that could improve on the same environmental requirements mentioned above, and deliver agronomic benefits such as not increasing net farm costs. IP rights are retained by the entrants. The solutions must also be compatible with current equipment for corn production.
The closing date for entries is 30 November 2020, with the winners announced in 2021.
Entrants are required to register with this competition, but not with the other challenge.
With the Next Gen Fertilizer Innovations Challenge, there is a US$65,000 cash pool, which can be allocated to different entries, with a minimum award of $10,000.
Multiple entries are possible, and in the Q&A at the end of the webinar it was confirmed that companies from outside the U.S. were eligible to enter, but that cash prizes were reserved for U.S. entrants only.
The approved term for what constitutes an EEF is based on the definition from the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). In 2013, AAPFCO defined EEFs as “fertilizer products with characteristics that allow increased plant uptake and reduce the potential of nutrient losses to the environment (e.g., gaseous losses, leaching or run-off) when compared to an appropriate reference product.” During the Q&A, it was clarified the definition also includes fertilizer products containing stabilizing products, such as urease inhibitors. ●
New AG International presents an exclusive interview with Lara Moody to hear about how TFI became one of the supporting organizations for this ground-breaking competition.
The first thing that is striking about this initiative is the number of collaborators spearheaded by the EPA-USDA partnership. Can you elaborate on how this has come about, obviously with reference to TFI?
Launching the Next Gen Fertilizer Challenges was almost a year in the making. Initially U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff engaged TFI to gain insight into the industry’s perspective and to assess interest in the effort. For more than a decade, TFI has led efforts to increase adoption for 4R practices, which includes supporting the role enhanced efficiency and other fertilizer product technologies and formulations have in 4R implementation on the farm to address agronomic and environmental goals. TFI collaboration and the ability to provide industry and academic input to develop the challenge was valuable to EPA and USDA, as well as to TFI. The expertise of the International Fertilizer Development Center was also called upon early in the process as it became clear they could support assessment and planned greenhouse trials. Collectively, we desire to increase awareness of these products for increased use on the farm, and for that reason it was important to collaborate with a grower and conservation group, thus bringing in the National Corn Growers Association and The Nature Conservancy.
Was there a particular driver that meant now was the right time to launch the initiative?
There were several drivers motivating TFI’s involvement in the initiative. First, there is growing evidence of the effectiveness of these products in advancing agronomic and environmental benefits on the farm. Additionally, we see a need to increase use of these products on the farm. And finally, it is important to further support emerging product development and innovation within the fertilizer industry. In a farm’s conservation system, these products can reduce agriculture’s impacts on the environment while maintaining or increasing productivity and profitability. For many in the food supply chain, these products can be an important element for reaching sustainability goals that focus on improving water quality and mitigating climate change. With an ever-increasing focus on reducing the environmental footprint of the agricultural system, the role and value of industry innovation is elevated and something we should use advantageously.
What's been the initial reaction to the competition from the industry?
A significant amount of interest has been expressed by industry, both within and external to the fertilizer industry. Combined, the two challenges create opportunities for products we traditionally think of stabilized, slow-, or controlled-release products – as well as other products that enhance nutrient use efficiency of nitrogen and phosphorus, which could include biostimulants. This is a great opportunity for industry members to gain recognition for their specific product formulations by U.S. federal agencies. Personally, I hope many industry members pursue participation as it will positively demonstrate and draw attention to innovation efforts already underway in the industry.
Where did the idea for a competition come from? It's reminiscent of the early days of industrial revolution in UK when competitions were held for fastest steam train design. Is that the reason for going for a competition format, to accelerate the ideas and provide an impetus?
For several years now, the U.S. government has used challenges to draw attention to and advance desired outcomes for specific issues. The competition aspect is a way to push the expectation for environmental and agronomic outcomes and, at the same time, narrow in on potential successors.
Why the exclusivity to the corn crop? Obviously, it's an important crop to the U.S., but are there other reasons for limiting the competition to one crop?
The idea to focus on corn stems from its importance and scale as a crop and for its use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer. In the United States, corn is the largest user of phosphorus and potassium. And, as a commodity crop, economics of production are important. It’s likely that solutions that advance nutrient use efficiency in corn would be feasible and applicable to other cropping systems.
This probably makes this one of the largest agri-tech competitions globally. How important was it to have an international dimension?
The international dimension acknowledges that there are contributors to U.S. agriculture beyond our borders and that solutions can come from unknown entities. The ultimate winner in the challenge is U.S. agriculture as the challenge seeks solutions to improve the sustainability of our crop production systems.
Where do you see some of the EEF disruptive technologies coming from in the Next Gen Fertilizer Innovations Challenge?
I can’t predict where the most exciting and potentially successful technologies will come from, and because we couldn’t, the Next Gen Fertilizer Challenge is open to non-EEF products. That’s why we are seeking other product formulations and technologies that improve nutrient use efficiency. Beyond traditional stabilized, slow-, and controlled-release products, I think we could see entries from emerging biostimulants, organic matrices, multi-nutrient combinations and maybe even some type of EEF-biostimulant combination. For me, it’s part of the fun and excitement of the challenges. What can we expect as a future solution for modern agriculture?
The competitions provide a launchpad for technology providers. Is there a rough outline on how to capitalize on it afterwards?
From TFI’s perspective, we are taking the opportunity to elevate policymaker and stakeholder awareness of industry innovation, and we are seeking to address some of the product registration challenges our members contend with for these products. We also want to ensure member awareness of emerging technologies, business opportunities and ideas that can advance sustainable agricultural systems. Beyond the challenges, we’ll use the outcomes to advocate for greater research, communication and incentive program support that will further advance on-farm adoption. ●
Finding the right ingredients
An interview with Markus Schmid, BASF
After earning his PhD in chemistry, Markus joined BASF as a lab team leader in polymer research in 2000. After job assignments in R&D, corporate strategy, and project management, he took over the responsibility of the N-management business at BASF’s Agricultural Solutions division.
Markus Schmid, BASF
BASF created one of the earliest slow-release nitrogen products as well as the well know nitrification inhibitor DMPP. Could you talk us through BASF’s history and position today?
More than 100 years ago, BASF was responsible for the pioneering invention of the Haber Bosch process (ammonia synthesis). It allowed the synthetic production of fertilizers that marked the start of modern agriculture. Today, BASF produces fertilizers only as by-products from chemical processes or for specific customers. As the inventor of the nitrification inhibitor 3-4 dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), BASF is still the leading producer of this active ingredient. DMPP has a very strong performance profile, particularly when compared to dicyandiamide (DCD) which requires higher application rates and can cause plant damage. DMPP is used by Compo Expert and Eurochem in their respective fertilizers Novatec and Entec. BASF has developed easy and ready-to-use formulations based on DMPP that are used for mineral fertilizers marketed under the Vibelsol® brand, and for organic fertilizers sold under the Vizura® brand.
BASF’s product Limus®, a urease inhibitor, was launched in 2015 with two active ingredients – 75% NBPT and 25% of a new compound N-(n-propyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NPPT). I believe it’s the only urease inhibitor with two active ingredients. How did this come about in the development process and what advantage does it confer?
As part of an early development of urease inhibitors, BASF’s R&D team screened for new compounds. Our scientists found there is a range of urease enzymes in the soil that stem from plants, bacteria and fungi. These are similar enzymes but differ in size, shape and surface area of their reactive cavities where urea is hydrolysed. BASF scientists identified that a mixture of two urease inhibitors allows control of a broader range of enzymes than the current market standard NBPT. This finding was translated from the lab into the greenhouse and finally to the field. Over 120 field trials on all continents and in a broad range of crops show that Limus® is 40% more effective than NBPT. That means at the same application rate of NBPT, Limus delivers 2.1% higher yield. Alternatively, customers can achieve the same performance they have come to expect with NBPT by using Limus® at 60% of the NBPT use rate. Studies indicate 0.6 kg of Limus® is equivalent to 1 kg of NBPT.
Why do you think these products are still popular today?
Nitrogen fertilizers, that are stabilized with urease- and nitrification inhibitors can play a key role in optimizing the crop output per unit of fertilizer used. They are the only technologies that directly reduce the impact from fertilizers on climate warming.
Can you explain the role for nitrogen fertilizers in the context of climate warming?
Agriculture contributes to 9.9% of global CO2 emission equivalents, by Methane and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions. Methane stems from animal production, while the nitrous oxide is related to the use of organic and mineral fertilizers. N2O is a very potent climate gas, that is 265 times stronger than CO2, has an atmospheric lifetime of more than 100 years and is also involved in ozone layer depletion. Fertilizer production has been optimized over the years, e.g. via the use of catalysts to eliminate N2O. However, the emissions from the farmers’ fields remain the main source of N2O.
So, if nitrogen fertilizers are increasing greenhouse gas emissions, what can be done to reduce their impact?
It has been demonstrated, that the climate gas emission rate per hectare is directly linked to the use rate of nitrogen fertilizers. However, to just cut the fertilizer rate is not a solution to the problem, because the crop nutrition will suffer, and farmers will ultimately loose yield. BASF has shown in long-term field trials, that 20% of yield is lost when the optimized N-rate is reduced by 50%. Therefore, farmers should adapt the nutrient stewardship concept 4R to optimize their crop yield per unit of fertilizer. A very efficient method is to use urease inhibitors and nitrification inhibitors to stabilize the fertilizers. They slow down biochemical processes in the soil that are responsible for gaseous and leaching losses from fertilizers. This way, DMPP can reduce the direct N2O emissions on average by 50%. Urease inhibitors also contribute to the reduction of direct N2O emissions on average by 25%.
The stabilizers Limus® and Vibelsol® are formulated products that fertilizer producers and distributors can add easily during fertilizer handling. In general, nitrogen stabilizers are a triple win: Farmers can expect higher yields and simplified farm operations, fertilizer companies can differentiate themselves in the market and the environment is less impacted by unwanted offsite effects from fertilization.
How do you see the future of fertilization?I think the future of fertilization will differ from the past significantly. The needs of society and the changing requirements regarding sustainability will trigger change. We will see more precise applications based on digital tools in combination with new products. Urease and nitrification inhibitors will be used more broadly as these can be part of the solution. We may also see innovations based on novel modes of action. BASF is actively working on innovations that will be launched in the coming years. We are looking into possibilities to include urease inhibitors directly into the urea production process and are exploring new ways to capture the value from reduction of fertilizer emissions. ●
It’s a Coating Matter: Controlled Release Fertilizers in Agriculture
by Ronald Clemens, Global - Marketing & Portfolio Manager CRF, ICL Specialty Fertilizers
an NPK granule with an organic resin coating around it, ensuring that one application of nutrients would be enough for a long period of time. It marked the start of a whole new principle of fertilizer application. This concept was originally developed for high value ornamental plants grown in pots, where losses of nutrients directly affect the quality of the crop. Quickly, the CRF concept was adopted in other high value crops like strawberries and fruit trees, where efficiency and simplicity of fertilizer application made a lot of sense.
Trial in potatoes, The Netherlands. One application of fully coated ICL CRF (Agrocote Max, below red line) instead of 3 applications with conventional nitrogen-based fertilizers (grower practice – above red line) increased total yield by 9% and generated €450/ha extra income.
Adoption in more extensive horticultural and agricultural crops was not yet the case, mainly because of the price gap between CRF and conventional fertilizers. In the last 10-15 years, new technical developments have enabled more economical and more efficient CRF products, creating possibilities for a more widespread use of controlled release fertilizers in agriculture.
With a global population expected to rise even further until 2050 and arable land decreasing, farmers need to use the land available to them more efficiently. At the same time, global pressures and climate change also increase the need to apply fertilizers more sensibly and use technologies that help to lower the environmental impact of agriculture worldwide.
The highest nutrient use efficiency
CRF is considered the fertilizer technology with the highest nutrient use efficiency. It is widely recognized that mineral fertilizers, including CRF, are responsible for feeding about half of the world’s population. Conventional fertilizers dissolve in the soil immediately after application, only providing nutrition for a short period of time. Multiple fertilizer applications are necessary to ensure that your crop gets the nutrition it needs. Multiple applications can also be practically complex for big farms, costly, and, as we know from recent studies, increase problems with soil compaction.
Thanks to their special coatings, CRF granules release their nutrients gradually over an extended time. Depending on a CRF product’s longevity, nutrient release takes several weeks up to many months.
• CRFs support better nutrient use efficiency, thanks to a reduction of nutrient losses to the environment and new application methods, like plant-hole application.
• Increased nutrient efficiency is realized by closely matching the nutrient needs of crops with the CRF’s nutrient release. Which not only leads to optimal growth, but also reduces nutrient leaching, volatilization, denitrification and run-off.
• CRF can maintain or increase crop yields at lower total nutrient inputs – an important benefit in regions where regulations have started to limit total nitrogen inputs, for example.
• CRFs reduce the number of applications needed: a major advantage in regions where manual labor costs are high and/or in (tropical) regions where mechanization and fertilizer transport is complicated due to steep slopes and poor infrastructure.
Depending on circumstances in cultivation, CRFs can significantly reduce:
• Total Fertilizer Use: by a rate of 20% to
even 50%.
• Leaching: by rates up to 55%.
• Denitrification: by an average rate of up to 40%.
• Volatilization: by rates up to 40%.
(Numbers based on independent research with ICL CRF technologies)
What is a Controlled Release Fertilizer?
It is important to note that not all CRF are the same, and often the term CRF is – incorrectly – used when one means Slow Release Fertilizers (SRF). Let’s look at the official definitions of these two types of fertilizers:
CRF: “A fertilizer in which nutrient release is controlled, meeting the stated release rate of nutrient and the stated release time at a specified temperature.” (ISO 8157:2015)
SRF: “A fertilizer of which, by hydrolysis and/or by biodegradation and/or by limited solubility, the nutrients available to plants is spread over a period of time, when compared to a ‘reference soluble’ product e.g. ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate and urea.” (ISO 8517:2015)
So, the nutrient release mechanism for the two fertilizers is completely different. SRFs are minerals that take a certain time to dissolve or to release their nutrients. CRF require a good quality coating and a consistent manufacturing process. While SRFs nutrient release is influenced by temperature, water, soil pH, and micro-organisms, CRF are only influenced by temperature and water.
Controlled Release Technologies
There are differences to be found in the materials applied to create the coating as well. What is important to understand, is that these differences exist and that they directly impact the nutrient release efficiency. The most efficient coating technology is the most recently developed one, the polymer coating. This allows the best control over the nutrient release, and so matches the plant demands most closely without any peaks or dips in release.
Another aspect to take into consideration when choosing a CRF is the different nutrients, combination of nutrients, and even their coating level. A fertilizer blend that consists of a 10% coated fraction is often called a controlled release fertilizer, but as you can imagine, its longevity characteristics, efficiency and effect on plant safety are very different to a CRF that is 100% coated. The closer to a crop’s roots you apply the fertilizer, the more important it is to use a CRF product that is fully coated. For example, in forestry, where fertilizers are applied into the planting hole and the young tree or seedling is planted straight onto that, a good quality, 100% coated CRF is essential.
A fully coated CRF is also the most efficient option to reduce nutrient losses, that in turn increase the fertilizer’s nutrient use efficiency and lower emissions to the environment.
Controlled Release prevents nutrient losses
Nitrogen (N) is especially prone to losses through nitrate leaching, mainly in light (sandy) soils. In tropical climates total nitrogen losses are highest. Controlled release nitrogen is often incorporated into the soil, so that run-off is automatically minimized. The coating around the N ensures that high NO3 levels in the soil shortly after application are avoided, so that leaching can also be prevented.
Phosphorus (P) suffers from fixation in soil. It can happen on alkaline / calcareous P-fixing soils and acidic P-fixing soils which are rich in aluminum and iron (hydr)oxides. Large parts of the humid tropics are covered with acidic highly weathered clayey soils which are predominantly P-fixating. CRFs can prevent soil fixation: phosphorus in CRF can keep nutrient concentration in the soils low and by that limit precipitation with- or adsorption to reactive minerals.
Potassium (K) can leach easily on sandy soils in heavy rainfall areas and highly weathered tropical soils. CRFs can prevent leaching. Because of complicated infrastructures in many tropical countries, lowering the input and transport of nutrients to plantations can be very important to improve the crop’s carbon footprint.
CRF efficiency and reduced nutrient losses mean that a farmer can lower the application rates and still maintain a healthy yield level. Lower rates reduce total fertilizer costs and makes fertilizer applications easier. At same rate input, CRFs have shown to increase yields per ha.
Success stories in agriculture
CRFs are already being used successfully in several agricultural crops in which nutrient efficiency, reducing fertilizer inputs and applications are very important (for example bananas, coffee, oil palm, rice, sugarcane, and potatoes). But there is no such thing as a 1-size-fits-all CRF that will realize higher nutrient use efficiency and/or higher yields in every crop it is applied to, in every region. It is vital to understand the crop needs and match the best possible CRF to that, and the growing circumstances in the region.
At ICL we have used our coating expertise and experience in the past decade to develop special formulations with specific coating percentages and longevities, that create a higher nutrient use efficiency in a specific crop or crop group. The effectiveness of these CRF concepts has been proven in our extensive trial program and independent research, that has resulted in tailored CRF programs.
A coffee trial in the Minas Gerais state of Brazil where conventional fertilizer is applied 3x per year via topdressing (left), versus an ICL CRF formulation of 4-5M in 1 application only (right).
CRF Research Compendium
ICL Specialty Fertilizers has compiled a compendium of independent, scientific CRF research over the years. The compendium provides an overview of the possibilities that CRF offer to achieve environmental benefits through its higher efficiency. This results in higher yields, less leaching, less volatilization and reduced N2O losses. Official publications like this compendium can play a role in the acceptance of CRF as a solution to more efficient fertilization. In Europe, for example, CRF can play a role to achieve the Farm-to-Fork target of a 50% reduction in nutrient losses.
Download the CRF Research Compendium here.
The future of CRF?
Technological developments in the past decade have made more economical controlled release fertilizers possible that are changing agricultural practices. CRFs now play a key role in reducing nutrient losses and in maintaining or increasing crop yields at lower or similar nutrient inputs than conventional grower practice.
Life-cycle analyses will provide agricultural producers, trade, and consumers further insights into the environmental benefits and lowered carbon footprint of this technology compared to conventional agricultural fertilizers.
Independent research on the efficiency of CRFs is ongoing and important to convince policy makers to adopt the technology in any new legislations to reduce the environmental impact of fertilizer practices.
Current polymer-sulphur and polymer coatings degrade very slowly and are effectively inert in the soil after the nutrients have been released. They are designed to be as thin as possible (as thin as a human hair) and permeable, while still allowing the coating to fulfil its function: to control the release of nutrients over a predefined time. In the next decade, upcoming legislations, like the new European rules around the biodegradability of CRF coatings, will challenge fertilizer manufacturers to create new coating technologies that degrade quicker. ●
Coat of many colours
An Interview with Adam Newberry, Milliken
Colorants are
a powerful tool
for fertilizer
products,
and even more
so for coatings
in the
controlled-release
sector.
New AG International put
the questions to
Adam Newberry,
Global Strategy Development for Milliken.
Adam Newberry, Global Strategy Development for Milliken
Many people will know Milliken as a colorants company but might not make the connection with fertilizer and controlled release fertilizers. Before we dive into detail, could you give an overview of Milliken and the link with the fertilizer industry?
Milliken is a privately held, diversified industrial company headquartered in South Carolina. We were founded in 1865 and are currently on the 5th generation of Milliken family members who make up the shareholders of our company. We started as a general store then grew into a textile manufacturer, and now serve many industries including textiles, floor coverings, specialty chemicals, and healthcare. Throughout the years, Milliken has invested in and thrived on its focus on quality, service, and innovation. During this journey, Milliken has developed unique capabilities, technologies and solutions which have helped it branch out from its humble beginnings. One such application was a deep knowledge of and unique technology in the world of colorants for many applications. While most people don’t associate fertilizer with colour, it is the first sensory contact that a user has with a fertilizer. Colour is a signal to the user for many aspects such as brand, quality, application,
and more.
Indication and identification are two key reasons for adding colour to a product. Could you elaborate on these benefits? (I'm assuming branding and the prevention of adulteration are one benefit)
Correct. Colour is utilized heavily as a visual cue to a user. It is used to indicate the presence of an application such as fertilizer that’s been applied to a particular location. A user likes to see where they have applied their investment. A white or brown fertilizer can easily get lost once applied whereas a vibrant and contrasting colour will highlight the presence of your value-added materials. It is also used to identify and differentiate product brands, grades, and formulations. Many stabilizer formulations are inherently colourless or pale in colour, which is not readily apparent when applied to a white urea product. This can lead to questions from the end user about whether the product they invested in is actually present of not. Adding a colorant to your products leaves no doubt in their mind that their investment is represented.
How do colorants help to prevent under- or over- application?
Our colorants act like a visual spray pattern indicator by highlighting where the fertilizer has been applied. While technology is improving and providing great advances, this quick visual check provides confirmation that an area has not been missed nor has it been over applied. Either of these potential issues can be detrimental to the plant and the environment, and also prove costly to the end user.
In terms of technical details - perhaps we can begin with learning the difference between a pigment and a dye. Regarding functionality, does the incorporation of a dye affect compaction performance?
Milliken has a complete colorant portfolio available to allow the addressing of many different applications. This includes pigments, dyes, and a novel liquid colorant which is a unique technology to Milliken under the Liquitint Agro colorants umbrella. There are many options to choose from with a range of performance characteristics. We design, select, and utilize the best solution for the specific application in question.
So what are the differences between these technologies?
o Pigments are roughly defined as insoluble particulates. They provide excellent stability when long term outdoor light stability is required. The physical form is typically a dusting powder and can present material handling challenges (high number of inventory SKU’s, dusting, staining) and poor stability in liquid formulations (settling).
o Dyes are generally considered as soluble in the intended solvent system. They provide bright colors with good solution solubility. Light and chemical stability is relatively poor when compared to pigments. The physical form is typically a dusting powder and can present material handling challenges.
o Milliken’s novel liquid colorants are a unique class of molecules (not a dye nor a pigment). They are inherently liquid and have tailored solubility to the application. This provides a dust-free colorant with easy handling and dosing. Additionally, they have been designed for excellent blendability and low staining allow for a huge range of potential colors with limited inventory and minimum changeover in manufacturing.
Moving specifically to CRFs - colorants are integrated into the polyurethane structure at molecular level. Could you explain a little on the benefits here and in a broader context what Milliken can bring to CRFs?
Milliken’s novel technology is a real game changer for the production of CRF’s. Our inherently liquid colorants are designed to be soluble in the polyol (key component in the polyurenthane component) and our colorant actually reacts into the PU structure. This provides an intimate and seamless relationship with the coating preventing potential defects which a pigment (insoluble particle) can impact to the high value coating. The interface between the PU coating and a pigment can create an unpredictable weak spot in the coating leading to potentially inconsistent nutrient release characteristics. We aim to eliminate this risk with our technology.
- Additionally, being liquid and highly blendable, our colorants allow for the potential of ‘color-on-demand’ while only using a select few inventoried primary colors. This provides maximum color selection flexibility with reduced handling concerns such as colour inconsistency from settling and blocking of equipment.
What types of fertilizers are Milliken products compatible with? Granular and water-soluble fertilizers?
We have commercial applications globally in a wide range of fertilizer applications including WSF, CRF, SRF, SF, foliar, NPK granular and more. With our broad and unique portfolio, we have a technical solution for each application.
Some people might have preconceptions when they hear the word 'dye'. Talk us through the environmental credentials of Milliken products.
We have a long history with color in many different sensitive applications such as Laundry and Fabric care, Children’s washable markers and finger paints, Snow and Ice management, Turf & Ornamental, Fertilizer, Seed Treatment, and many more. We perform a robust internal risk assessment for each application as well as comply with all relevant regulatory requirements such as TSCA, REACH, 40 CFR, and more. Our goal is to provide valuable solutions to our customers and ‘Do Good’ for our customers, employees, and the environment.
And lastly, looking into your crystal ball (or project pipeline!) - what other things could be done with Milliken technology in the future regarding CRFs?
We are always looking for that next problem to solve whether it be related to color or other needs. We know regulatory challenges will continue to present opportunities for innovation and we are actively working to address several of these needs such as reducing waste and improving the environmental fate of the products utilized in our industries.
About Milliken
Materials science expert Milliken & Company knows that a single molecule has the potential to change the world. With innovative solutions across the textile, flooring, specialty chemical, and healthcare industries, we meet the moment with an unwavering commitment to sustainably solving problems for our customers and communities. Eight thousand associates across 46 locations globally rally behind a common purpose: to positively impact the world for generations. Discover more about our curious minds and inspired solutions at milliken.com. ●
Chain Reaction - how Saviolife makes slow release nitrogen
New AG International spoke to
Federico Guaraldi, Sales Director,
from Saviolife to
understand more about
their slow-release
urea products.
Federico Guaraldi, Sales Director, Saviolife
Tell us a little about the history of SAVIOLIFE /MAURO SAVIOLA GROUP in manufacturing slow release urea?
The Mauro Saviola Group has integrated vertically in 1973 based on the strong need to self-produce glues and resins for the particleboard upstream which is the core business of our Group of companies. Afterwards the chemical part has evolved beyond its role of Italian leading adhesives manufacturer when in 2001, a brand new technology for production of liquid and granular Nitrogen methylene–urea slow release fertilizer with an innovative manufacturing process was installed, as a consequence of an important investment in the Italian factory located in Viadana (Mantua) with the scope to diversify in alternative sectors.
After few years, the slow release fertilizer business of our Group conquered the European market and expanded quickly to North America becoming one of the world’s largest player in the sector of Methylene-urea specialty slow release nitrogen fertilizers with a global presence both in the Turf & Ornamental (T&O) sector and Agriculture (AG). The continuous growth in this industry and the strong commitment of our shareholders has driven to create the 4th legal entity of the Group at beginning of 2019: SAVIOLIFE srl , the life science company , fully dedicated and focused to further develop this sector.
SAVIOLIFE® integrated completely the two products lines SAZOLENE® (slow release Nitrogen) and SAVIOTAN® (a vegetal extract suitable for a wide series of application) , which represent the two pillars of the new company, targeting ambitious development for the next 5 years, with relevant investment to support the internal growth.
Your products : Sazolene® and Saviotan® - talk us through the range (liquid and granular), explaining how it they work.
Sazolene is a brand name that includes unique and innovative slow release Nitrogen available in liquid and granular formulations. The slow release of nitrogen is obtained by a new patented technology, that enable to condensate units of urea in polymers ( chains ) with different degree of reaction ensuring various solubility and releasing time, suitable for different application, from short cycle to permanent crops.
The granular formulations ( named SAZOLENE 39G) are retained in the soil profile with a predicted nitrogen release, ensuring delivery of this primary nutrient in synchrony with plant demand and able to avoid lost in underground water and ammonia volatilization, feeding the plants with a much better cost-efficacy balance.
The liquid formulations ( named SAZOLENE SC ) are suitable for soil, drip and foliar application. The features of our true slow release nitrogen solution are unique: have the lowest Salt Index of any other liquid nitrogen without phytotoxicity or burning potential and quick absorption thanks a complex series of organic nitrogen molecules with low molecular weight to ensure receive nitrogen across the cell membrane in 24-48 hours, where it is translocated for storage, metabolism and use with a long lasting effect of about 4 weeks.
In both cases, granular and liquid SAZOLENE, works in a very simple and smart way: using the natural fertility and the interaction with soil bacteria and plant leaves enzymes. SAZOLENE products are not using coating substances responsible of undesired microplastic residues in the environment or chemical biocides to inhibit urease or nitrification enzymes, responsible in nature for the natural degradation process of urea and other nitrogen types in available units for plant nutrition. In this way methylene urea products are a sustainable resource for the whole industry.
SAVIOTAN, is a brand name that includes innovative vegetal extracts with high concentration of polyphenols available in liquid and granular formulations. The unique quality and concentration of the product is obtained by a patented technology that use no chemical solvent and an extraction technology that grant a 100% biological product with the maximum purity.
In both cases , granular and liquid SAVIOTAN, are offered for several different market application like feed, food, tanning, oenology, pharma and of course agriculture, thanks to the antioxidant and biostimulant properties of the extract. SAVIOLIFE is developing a series of new products to offer in the agriculture and T&O [Turf & Ornamental] markets, to provide micronutrients chelation, starting effect to increase seed germination, biostimulating activity in post transplantation and control of vegetables stress for horticultural crops and several other sustainable and eco-friendly products through a dedicated and continuous R&D program.
Where do you manufacture your products?
SAVIOLIFE facilities are located in Viadana (MN) Italy and in Genk (Belgium) for SAZOLENE products and in Radicofani (SI) Italy for SAVIOTAN. Large, innovative and advanced factories are the beating heart of SAVIOLIFE from where, every year, we deliver in the global markets innovative products designed to reduce the environmental impact of fertilizers enhancing farming practices and offering a real value for end users and the entire distribution chain.
You buy urea for production. Does it matter if it is prilled or granular urea?
Urea is the major raw material used in our several factories for different production processes. It is melted into a solution and for this reason is not important if prilled or granular (mainly depend from the price) and afterwards used in different synthesis and process to get final products, including methylene-urea slow release nitrogen. The Mauro Saviola Group is probably the main Italian urea importer having reached up to 250,000 tonnes/year for all sites.
What are the end-use sectors for Sazolene? which markets are for liquid and for granular? For example, I understand durum wheat in Europe is a large consumer of slow-release urea, UF and methylene urea products. The ornamental plant sector - is that an important market?
Sazolene 39G is an ingredient for manufacturing ready-to-use fertilizers, to provide slow release nitrogen in the final product. Thanks to the different sizes available and the dust free round granules, Sazolene is a preferred component in the production of high quality bulk blend fertilizers because is a unique slow release source that can assure slow release, without nitrogen loss or dumping in case of crush of particles during mixing, shipping or handling; for this reason it can be used also for compacted or granulated manufacturing process. A gradual release of nitrogen is still assured, without nitrogen loss or dumping.
Sazolene SC has even more dynamic application range. It can be sprayed on leaves of cereals, vegetables, fruit trees and vineyards giving to the plants a shot of very high efficient Nitrogen that allows for growth constantly without vegetative excesses. Amenities and ornamentals sector definitively can benefit application of liquid SAZOLENE SC during some crucial phases avoiding Nitrogen deficiencies. Thanks to high compatibility can be used as well to manufacture NP, NK and NPK solution in fertilizers program or to prevent nitrogen deficiencies.
SAZOLENE, granular and liquid, have a wide range of applications. Is a very flexible source of smart nitrogen which all crops can benefit thanks to the various releasing times available: can be used on food crops, horticulture and fruits and for turf, flowers, landscaping and ornamental plants including new seedlings. The Turf and Ornamental sector is our core market but agriculture/food market is recording a global continuous expansion over time for specialty / slow release products because the global necessity of inputs and farming practices to protect the environment.
What countries do you export your products to?
Saviolife’s presence is global: from North America to Asia Pacific. Of course, Europe is our domestic market, but today we are very dedicated to expand our presence in several markets like LATAM, Middle East, Africa and other markets that represent a strategical development for the next future.
We’re extending the registration of our products in many of these markets and looking for new partnerships and strategic alliances.
How do you see the future of slow-release fertilizers? Are there any trends you have noticed in recent years?
The more food demand and, consequently, the lack of arable lands impose more efficient farming practices and inputs to produce more with less. Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers, precision farming, biostimulants, 4R practices are the hottest topics discussed in our industry in the last decade. Environment care and protection is a must for the fertilizer industry today and Saviolife’s commitment is to provide innovative fertilizers to improve the quality and development of ornamentals and food crops, reduce maintenance and production cost and reduce or eliminate the impact on the ecosystem. We in Saviolife observe that the demand of slow release nitrogen is constantly growing across the globe. More knowledge about the system of action of the products, more formulations available and more demand of sustainable technologies, are actually increasing the geographies where our products are required. ●
NAI Brazil 2020 Virtual conference
Exploring developments in SCRSFs
SCRSFs had a dedicated track at the digital NAI Brazil event held 17-19 November 2020. It was free to register as a delegate. The opening day looked at the role of SCRSFs in ensuring food supply with a special focus
on coffee and tropical crops.
The second session looked
at R&D in the
SCRSF industry.
On the second day there was a focus on SCRSF products and technology, formulation and application insight, which then continues into the third day.The following section takes some of the subject material from the presentations, and in two cases New AG International has gone back to the presenters for additional comment. It begins with New AG International asking some of the presenters from these sessions to give a quick-fire overview of their presentations. Then, we look at some of the presentations in more detail – namely the difficulties in quantifying the SCRSF market, using SRF on coffee in Brazil and then trialling controlled-release urea and stabilised urea in Brazil.
Adubos Real
Renato Fonseca de Paiva
Gerente de Marketing e P&D
What is the subject of your presentation at NAI Brazil (SCRSFs track) and what are the key take-away messages?
The subject of presentation is the benefits of using enhanced efficiency fertilizers in tropical agriculture, especially in Brazil. The cultivation conditions are quite favourable to losses such as volatilization, nitrogen denitrification and phosphorus fixation. Among alternatives to mitigate losses, the use of enhanced efficiency fertilizers has stood out. Real TURBO, a special fertilizers line, from Adubos Real contribute a lot in this regard. They are fertilizers with ingredients that reduce nitrogen and phosphorus losses. In this way, nutrients are available longer in the soil solution contributing to nutrition. As the losses of nutrients in the environment are less, it is possible to work with adjusted fertilizer doses. This contributes to reducing environmental impacts and helps the rational use of inputs.
When it comes to SCRSFs where do you expect to see the significant developments in the next few years? (will the main drivers be technology, pricing or increased adoption rates, for example)
The greater the adoption of these technologies, the better for all agribusiness. Some challenges must be overcome, such as the prejudice that they are very expensive products. Indeed, they have a higher value than conventional fertilizers. However, the return on investment is greater than that of conventional fertilizers. In addition, there is greater certainty that the investment in fertilization will be returned with less influence from environmental factors in the success of fertilization. The technologies shipped in these fertilizers have been improving every year. It is important that the product has its manufacturing and positioning appropriate to each particular crop where it will be used. That is why local validations are extremely important. The greater the use of SCRSFs, the smaller the difference between their prices and those of conventional fertilizers. And more benefits for the entire agribusiness chain, especially for the farmer.
If there was a particular crop or sector that you think would benefit most from SCRSFs and isn't currently using in any great volume - what would it be?
Talking about the Brazilian market, phosphate fertilizers with enhanced efficiency can contribute a lot in the rational use of inputs in soy and corn crops. In terms of nitrogen fertilization, crops such as corn, coffee and the forest sector stand out. All of these crops can benefit from reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced environmental impact, as well as increased productivity.
BASF
Dr Maarten Staal
Team Leader Technical Sales N-Management
What is the subject of your presentation at NAI Brazil (SCRSFs track) and what are the key take-away messages?
One of the most investigated urease inhibitors is N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT)*. So far, mainly applications on straight urea have been described in literature and little information is available on storage stability of NBPT containing urease inhibitors in urea based NPK and ammonium sulfate (AS) fertilizer mixtures. In this research the influence of AS and phosphate fertilizers on urease inhibitor stability have been investigated. Both phosphate and AS containing fertilizers significantly increased the degradation speed of NBPT. In my presentation I will discuss different ways to mitigate this degradation.
When it comes to SCRSFs where do you expect to see the significant developments in the next few years? (will the main drivers be technology, pricing or increased adoption rates, for example)
Initiatives to reduce emissions from fertilizers (e.g. NEC directive, European Green Deal, China’s zero-growth policy) are more and more being translated into regulations that also involve fertilizer use. Such regulations will lead to an increasing demand of technologies that increase the nitrogen use efficiency, such as SCRSFs. Among controlled release, slow release and stabilized fertilizers, the latter is the most affordable tool to reduce ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen fertilizers and improve nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). BASF´s nitrogen stabilizer portfolio includes both urease inhibitor (Limus®, containing a patented synergetic mixture of NBPT and NPPT) and nitrification inhibitor (Vibelsol®, containing DMPP) products. In addition, we are developing innovative and sustainable active ingredients to address the market need for nitrogen stabilizers that can be used on a broad range of fertilizers and crops.
If there was a particular crop or sector that you think would benefit most from SCRSFs and isn't currently using in any great volume - what would it be?
The use of SCRSF in mineral fertilizer for row crops is currently very limited. Farmers would benefit from using urease inhibitors (UI) and nitrification inhibitors (NI) by improving the NUE of their fertilizer resulting in higher yields and improved crop quality. Especially in Latin America, where farmers are using relatively low rates of nitrogen fertilizer, the use of UI and NI products often lead to a significant yield increase and improved profitability of farms. In addition, these stabilizers improve the ecological footprint of their business by reducing nitrate leaching and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
* Kiss, S. and Simihaian, M. (2002): Improving Efficiency of Urea Fertilizers by Inhibition of Soil Urease Activity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Café Brasil Fertilizantes Company
Maria Tais Buzzo Gomes
R&D Director
What is the subject of your presentation at NAI Brazil (SCRSFs track) and what are the key take-away messages?
Our main subject is to present the slow release technology included at "Ciclus NK" product, from Café Brasil Fertilizantes Company, with its advantages and benefits to coffee areas, based on years of research. The most important message is to introduce a tool that can help the farmer to manage the fertilizing with great cost benefit, environmental sustainability and climate independence.
When it comes to SCRSFs where do you expect to see the significant developments in the next few years? (will the main drivers be technology, pricing or increased adoption rates, for example)
We expect a significant increase with the growing adoption of technology, due to better cost benefit and the agronomic results of the products, especially at citrus, forestry banana and other perennial crops.
If there was a particular crop or sector that you think would benefit most from SCRSFs and isn't currently using in any great volume - what would it be?
All the perennial crops at no mechanized areas have great potential to adopt SCRSFs, due to economy of labour and machine operations, reducing the production cost and all the other crops can take advantages of the technology to manage climate changes and instability.
Koch Industries
Matias Ruffo
Agronomy Manager Latin America & South Africa
What is the subject of your presentation at NAI Brazil (SCRSFs track) and what are the key take-away messages?
The presentation will cover Koch Agronomic Services´ portfolio of SCRSFs, including AGROTAIN® nitrogen stabilizer with special emphasis on recently launched products such as ANVOL® (urease inhibitor) and CENTURO® (nitrification inhibitor) nitrogen stabilizers. ANVOL launched in Brazil in 2020, and is the technology behind SuperN®PRO treated urea. ANVOL with the patented active ingredient Duromide delivers the longest-lasting protection against ammonia volatilization. CENTURO is a next-generation nitrification inhibitor for anhydrous ammonia and UAN. Featuring the patented active ingredient Pronitridine, CENTURO offers highly effective below-ground nitrogen protection.
When it comes to SCRSFs where do you expect to see the significant developments in the next few years? (will the main drivers be technology, pricing or increased adoption rates, for example)
The most significant developments will most likely be the widespread adoption of more effective nitrogen stabilizers, particularly urease and nitrification inhibitors. The growth will mainly be due to an increasing grower focus on improving fertilizer efficiency especially with the challenging economics for commodity crops. The main challenge for controlled release fertilizers still is the relatively high cost compared to stabilizers in markets that are more sensitive to input cost.
If there was a particular crop or sector that you think would benefit most from SCRSFs and isn't currently using in any great volume - what would it be?
There is still considerable growth potential for stabilized nitrogen sources in key crops like corn and sugarcane, as more urea is used in cropping systems that maintain a significant amount of residue on the soil surface (mechanical harvest, no-till cropping systems). Coffee is a key crop for slow and controlled-release fertilizers due to the large planted area, high nutrient application rate, large number of manually operated farms and high value of the crop.
Hunter Swisher
Chief Executive Officer
Phospholutions, Inc.
What is the subject of your presentation at NAI Brazil (SCRSFs track) and what are the key take-away messages?
The focus of my talk is on RhizoSorb, a patented nutrient delivery technology that releases nutrients like phosphorus more efficiently than current SCRSFs. It works by storing and releasing nutrients within the soil based on a chemical gradient, providing a more plant-dependent release profile. RhizoSorb is a soil amendment/fertilizer additive used to improve phosphorus use efficiency by increasing uptake and decreasing unwanted tie-up and leaching.
When it comes to SCRSFs where do you expect to see the significant developments in the next few years? (will the main drivers be technology, pricing or increased adoption rates, for example)
The main drivers will be cost, consumer demands for sustainably grown food, and environmental regulations. I believe nutrient use efficiency requires a combination of emerging technologies to maximize farmer profitability. I also believe the ag/food value chain monetizing the environmental benefit is an important driver for rapid adoption.
If there was a particular crop or sector that you think would benefit most from SCRSFs and isn't currently using in any great volume - what would it be?
I believe the biggest impact (environmentally speaking) is in broad-acre row crops (corn, soybean, wheat, etc.). Adoption of new technology is historically slow and requires a clear and compelling ROI to overcome a perceived risk. If farmer profitability is not significantly increased, the incentive to adopt new technologies is minimal until environmental regulation increases pressure or incentivizes farmer adoption.
Pedro Lopes Garcia
Researcher at CENA/USP
What is the subject of your presentation at NAI Brazil (SCRSFs track) and what are the key take-away messages?
Quantifying the nutrient recovered by agricultural crops using SCRSFs can help to recommend the best fertilization management practices, and to avoid economic losses and pollution. The subject of my presentation is to provide information about the quantity of nitrogen-fertilizer recovery in maize and common bean in a specific site in Brazil using blends of controlled-release and NBPT-treated urea.
When it comes to SCRSFs where do you expect to see the significant developments in the next few years? (will the main drivers be technology, pricing or increased adoption rates, for example)
There are different types of SCRSFs around the world. It is interesting to research the nutrient recovery by crops and other analyses applying SCRSFs in different soil, weather conditions, and crop systems. It can provide knowledge to improve the SCRSFs technologies for different situations and crops, reduce acquisition costs, or even fertilizer rate.
If there was a particular crop or sector that you think would benefit most from SCRSFs and isn't currently using in any great volume - what would it be?
SCRSFs normally have higher costs than conventional fertilizers and depending on the soil, weather conditions, and crop systems it would be an alternative to reduce the number of mechanized operation and nutrient losses, improving the synchronism of nutrient release and recovery by crops. Economic researches involving agronomic analyses in annual and perennial crops (maize, common bean, sugarcane, coffee, eucalyptus, and other crops) would help to increase the use of SCRSFs.●
Market overview
for SCRSFs -
the difficulties in quantifying
this market
Steve Buissinne/Pixabay
At New AG International’s NAI Brazil event in November 2020, editor-in-chief Luke Hutson gave an overview of the difficulties in quantifying the SCRSF market at a
global level.
The first and most obvious problem is the range of products. Just look at the acronym SCRSF. Let’s start to break it down:
S – this stands for slow-release and refers to urea-reaction products, which includes sulphur-coated urea.
CR – this stands for Controlled release, which refers to the coated products, usually solid, granular.
S - and the second ‘S’ is for stabilised fertilizers, which refers to the nitrogen fertilizers that receive inhibitors and these can be liquid or solid.
As will be apparent in another feature in this e-book (See: Commodity fertilizer companies continue to push into the enhanced efficiency sector), there are multiple products here, some are solid, some are liquid, while the inhibitors themselves are added to products. There is also another major difficulty in that many SRF and CRF products are used in non-agricultural markets – namely, the recreational, so-called turf markets, and ornamental markets.
Limited published data
The first point to make is that published data by country for the consumption of scrsf is limited. A notable example is Australia.
There would appear to be two reasons for this – the first is that consumption levels would be low compared to conventional fertilizers and so it might not always be practicable to do so. Much also depends on how a country – and more specifically its fertilizer association – tracks the consumption of fertilizer. Sometimes this will be done on a nutrient basis, split out for only a few products for each nutrient.
And secondly, the production of SCRSFs is highly concentrated in a few countries and so it will only be through trade data that you might be able to learn something about a country’s SCRSF consumption.
Such an exercise becomes even harder when considering the use of inhibitors. Here, the volumes are derived largely by an assessment of how much tonnage of a product receives an inhibitor? (eg a percentage of applied ammonia in USA). However, there is a further complication because some inhibitor products can be added on farm – so how can you be sure of the tonnage receiving the inhibitor?
Often the stabilised fertilizers are separated from the coated fertilizers. But really the bigger question is whether it even makes sense to assess the market on global level? There data becomes more limited as you move away from the main consuming countries. And if there is a lack of transparency in data for agricultural end-users for SCRSF, it is even more the case for the non-agricultural markets.
Breaking the code
When products are traded around the world, they are given an HS code, usually six digits, but for more detail they go up to 10.
One of the problems in quantifying the slow- and controlled release market is that there is not a code for every single product.
Let’s take the code 3102100090 as an example. The code for standard urea is usually in 6 digits – 310210. Further digits are added for greater detail.
But here’s the problem: the ten-digit code can be used for technical urea and sulphur-coated urea.
Sulphur-coated urea is one of our slow release products but the code ending in nine-zero can refer to technical urea, of which it’s end-uses can be diesel exhaust fluid. This will make tracking trade flows for sulphur-coated urea more difficult.
Another example is the 31052000 code. This is a general code for classification for a fertilizer containing three fertilising elements – so standard NPKs. Rather usefully, an import record for India shows the code and provides a description next to it – the description said this was a shipment ‘Osmocote slow release 13-13-13’ the ICL product.
This again highlights the problem – how do you know if it is an NPK or a controlled release NPK?
So let’s look at some data. There are two major studies in the last 10 years that have tried to quantify the Slow/controlled release market.
Published research
There are two pieces of published work detailing global SCRSF consumption that are most often quoted:
The work of Sarah P Landels of AgIndustries Research and Consulting. She presented her work at the New Ag/IFA slow/controlled release conference in 2013.
RAMS & Co 2018, who presented their results at New Ag International/IFA conference slow/controlled release conference in 2019.
Chart 1 Source: AgIndustries Research and Consulting
Firstly, let’s look at Landels work. This chart shows the ‘world’ market consumption for 2009/10. Notice how the regional split was done – USA, Western Europe, and Japan and even then it is a mix of one region and two countries. This basically took the most important markets at the time. China would now need to be on this list.
But for this research, USA was by far the largest market. Product type then becomes important. The coated sector was bigger for USA, while the slow release sector was biggest for Western Europe. The Japanese market was dominated by coated products.
AgIndustries ‘global’ total consumption was nearly 900,000 product tonnes/year.
Extrapolation exercise
The next chart tries to extrapolate from that early Landel’s data to see where we would be today, and later tries to add an estimated component for China.
Source: AgIndustries Research and Consulting / RAMS & Co / Author
Chart 2 takes the total figure from Landel’s at 2010 at approx. 900,000 t/y and extrapolates using the growth rate given in Landel’s presentation (to 2015 it was 2-3.75%). Some data published by RAMS & Co for 2016 and 2018 (2.1 M t CRF, 1.8 M t SRF) has then been added for 2016 and 2018. The major point to note here is that RAMS & Co were including China while the Landel/AgIndustries information from 2010 did not have a component for China. This explains the difference. It should also be noted that RAMS & Co, l
