New innovations to recycle phosphorus

Liisa Pietola, Research Centre Hanninghof, Agronomic R&D

Yara International ASA

EU Strategy for Baltic Sea Region Priority 9/Rural development & Agriculture

The House of Estates Helsinki 22.1.2010

Liisa Pietola

Contents

1. Aiming efficient phosphorus use by general farming practises– Fertilisation best management practises FBMP

2. Focus of innovation: hot spots of P load – Soils – Manures

3. New innovations – Gypsum -based products

– Manure treatment

– Soil treatment – To improve P recycling and efficient use for cropping

– In accordance of "Putting best practices in agriculture into work“ …without reducing the productivity or the competitiveness of the farming” (p 11, European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region SEC (2009) 712)

PP P

Liisa Pietola

Fertiliser and nutrient management Suggested measures by HELCOM to reduce N and P losses

Nutrient balances– Reduced fertilisation

– Optimised: supply=removal Integration of fertiliser and manure supply Liming Avoiding the application of fertilisers and manure to high-risk areas Avoiding spreading of fertilisers and manure during high-risk periods Catch crops Systematic on-farm individual advice

The measures are supported By best fertiliser management practises BFMP by EFMA/Yara

Application and farmer services

1. Aiming efficient phosphorus use by general farming practises

Liisa Pietola

2. Focus of innovation: hot spots of P load Hot spots

Turbid runoff from erosion sensitive soils– P transported within soil particles by water erosion

Clay soils & soils compacted by heavy machinery

Phosphorus rich soils Manure amendment soils

– P leaches easily without soil adsorption Soils rich in dissolved P due to surplus vs plant needs: Pig manure P:N 1:3 vs. cereals 1:6 or grasses 1:9

– Dissolved P adsorption weak by organic material

Fig. Valkama Fig. Alasuutarii

Liisa Pietola

Current specific tools to control P losses: 1. Reduced tillage – direct sowing 2. Constructed wetlands 3. Buffer zones

Additional innovations needed: 4. Chemical methods for P absorption:

– In-field – not out – For crop reuse

P should remain a a part of ecological cycle for continuous use in agriculture– No strong precipitation mechanisms

New Innovations: Focus on hot spots 1. Erosion = particle phosphorus of runoff2. Manure phosphorus

3. Tools keep P in fields

Liisa Pietola

– CaSO4*H2O as

1. Soil amendment on fields (4 tn/ha)2. Precipitate enhancer mixed into manures (4 kg/tn)

(with MgO)

Calcium (Ca) or Magnesium (Mg) -bound phosphorus (P) usable for crops in soil pH 6-7 unlike Iron (Fe)- or Aluminium (Al)-precipitates

Gypsum -based solutions on-farm tests:

Sakari Alasuutari TTS

Liisa Pietola

5. Solid: NPK-fertilizer or for energy production

4. Liquid: NK-fertilizer

1. Gypsum-based precipitate 2. Stirring 3. Sedimentation by settling Precipitate

(0,2-0,5 %)

Ca-phosphates MgNH4-phosphate

P available for crops

no / low P

high P

How does gypsum reacts in manures?

Liisa Pietola

Into low- and high –P fractions by gypsum-based precipitate

– P-free effluent after solid removal and settling of phosphates – P-rich solids at the bottom of farm pit

Manure P fractioning in practise

P for separate use for fields where P is needed

Sakari Alasuutari TTS

Liisa Pietola

Crop response: manure treatment

Biomass of wheat shoots fertilised by manure liquid or untreated manure:

P concentration of shoots

020

406080

100120

140160

1 2 3

no. of sampling site on farm

g /

0.7

5 m

2

treated liquid

control

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

1 2 3

no. of sampling site on farm

P, g

/kg

treated liquid

control

Sakari Alasuutari TTS

Liisa Pietola

Ca-sulphate dissolves readily Increases soil Ca and SO4 concentration and EC

– Which enable P trapping Soil aggregation improves Turbidity decreases Particle P transportation decreases

How does gypsum react in soils?

PO43- P in leaching water

decreases due to EC effect

in runoff decreases: due increased Ca and EC

Soil-bound P

Liisa Pietola

Spreading prior to tillage (0, 2, 4, 6 tn/ha)

Phosphorus leaching control in practise

Soil aggregation next spring

Control: turbid pond

4 tn/ha gypsum: clear pond

Pasi Valkama VHVSY

Sakari Alasuutari TTS

Ulla Kulokoski Yara

Liisa Pietola

4 tn/ha gypsum before ploughing 2009

6 tn/ha

0 tn/ha

Crop response: soil treatment

More Gypsum better growth…In 2009 for wheat

Liisa Pietola

Crop response: soil treatment

P uptake by wheat shoots

P

abab

abab

aab ab

ab ab

b bb

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0SM 2SM 4SM 6SM 0S 2S 4S 6S 0K 2K 4K 6K

mg SM minimum till

S direct sowingK mouldboard ploughing

0, 2, 4 = ton/ha gypsum

Gypsum rate increases 0, 2, 4, 6 tn/ha

Minimum-till No-till Plough

Liisa Pietola

Conclusions

1. Turbidity (soil particle P) of runoff remarkable (70-50%) decreased during the first winter after soil treatment

2. Leaching of dissolved soil phosphorus was decreased

3. Liquid manure, of which major part of phosphorus was fractionated into fibres, well infiltrated into soils for efficient crop nutrient use

4. More efficient P uptake of crops after soil or manure treatments 5. Solutions were applicable for farm management practises and did not harm

crop growth, rather vice versa and in accordance with:

• "Putting best practices in agriculture into work“ …without reducing the productivity or the competitiveness of the farming” (p 11, European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region SEC (2009) 712)

Effect durability are currently testing by the TraP project

Liisa Pietola

Our partners in the R&D project TraP

Novel gypsum-based products for farm scale phosphorus trapping (2008-2011) Yara-Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation)- project

SYKE Finnish Environment Institute, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, TTS Work Efficiency Institute, Luode Consulting Ltd.

VHVSY Water Protection Association of The River Vantaa and Helsinki region, Local farmers (15), South-Western Environmental Agency (ELY)

Thank you!