Choosing Coated or Nitrification Inhibitor Nitrogen Fertilizer Forms
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
| François Laurent | Arvalis | f.laurent(at)arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr | Boigneville (91) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philippe Eveillard | UNIFA | peveillard(at)unifa.fr | Paris (75) |
| Marc Hervé | K+S Nitrogen | marc.herve(at)ks-nitrogen.com | Paris (75) |
| Rémy Ballot | INRA | remy.ballot(at)grignon.inra.fr | Grignon (78) |
Spam control: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
Coating nitrogen fertilizers causes a spreading of the passage of nitrogen in nitrate form into the soil solution. The duration of this spreading is conditioned by soil moisture: this is why it is preferable to incorporate this type of fertilizer. For fertilizers with nitrification inhibitors, the activity of nitrosomonas bacteria responsible for the conversion of nitrogen from ammoniacal form to nitrite (then nitrate) is delayed for a variable duration depending on climatic conditions (temperature) and the nature of the inhibitor used (up to 10 weeks).
Implementation period On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Easily generalizable
The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors is applicable to any fertilized crop.
All soil types: Easily generalizable
The use of fertilizers with nitrification inhibitors may increase the risk of ammonia emissions on basic soils, since it maintains nitrogen longer in ammoniacal form which is sensitive to volatilization, but this effect is not significant.
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors is particularly justified in years when rainfall is high at the time nitrogen inputs are made, and when leaching loss risks are high. In these situations, fertilizers with nitrification inhibitors also help limit losses by denitrification, which is not demonstrated for coated fertilizers.
Regulation
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Increasing
GHG emissions: DECREASE
Effect on water quality: Variable
N.P.: VARIABLE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Air: The use of fertilizers with nitrification inhibitors can help limit nitrogen losses by denitrification (nitrous oxide emissions) when this limits temporary nitrate excesses in the soil solution. Conversely, this can increase the risk of losses by volatilization on basic soils (ammonia emissions).
Water: The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors can reduce leaching losses in some particular cases: large inputs at stages where crop uptake is low (inputs at sowing on maize for example) followed by heavy rainfall, especially on shallow soils. In other cases (inputs coinciding with stages of high crop demand or moderate rainfall after input or deep soils less sensitive to drainage), the direct effect of mineral fertilization on nitrogen leaching losses is limited: the effect of using this type of fertilizer is therefore rather neutral.
Fossil energy: no effect.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: Variable
The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors can have a positive impact on yield in situations where it increases the proportion of nitrogen utilized by the crop by limiting losses by leaching, or even by denitrification (for fertilizers with nitrification inhibitors).
Soil fertility: No effect (neutral)
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity: No effect (neutral)
"Economic" criteria
Operating costs: Increasing
Coated fertilizers and those with nitrification inhibitors are more expensive per unit than conventional fertilizers. This additional cost is partly related to the coating or inhibitor (and thus variable depending on the type of coating and to a lesser extent the inhibitor used), and partly to the base fertilizer, which may differ from a conventional fertilizer. Relatively, the additional cost varies depending on the unit cost of conventional fertilizer: in a context of high nitrogen unit price, the additional cost of a coated fertilizer or with nitrification inhibitor becomes less significant.
The unit cost of a nitrogen fertilizer with nitrification inhibitor is 1.3 to 1.6 times higher than that of a conventional fertilizer.
For coated nitrogen fertilizers, the unit cost is 8 to 12 times higher than that of a conventional fertilizer, but this additional cost can be limited by using partially coated fertilizers. For example, the additional cost related to the use of partially coated urea (33% of granules coated) on maize is around €35 to €40/ha based on 180 units and compared to a unit cost of standard urea of €1.10 per unit.
Mechanization costs: Variable
The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors can reduce mechanization costs if it reduces the number of passes (15-20 € per pass)
Margin: Variable
The additional cost of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors can be partially or fully offset in situations where they allow yield gains by limiting losses by leaching/denitrification and/or a reduction in the number of passes.
Other economic criteria: Variable
Fuel consumption: variable
The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors can reduce fuel consumption if it reduces the number of passes
"Social" criteria
Working time: Decreasing
The use of coated fertilizers or with nitrification inhibitors can reduce workload if they are used to reduce the number of passes.
Observation time: No effect (neutral)
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| take-all | pathogen (bioagressor) |
Favored Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. For further information
- 3,4-Dimethylpyrazol Phosphate Effect on Nitrous Oxide, Nitric Oxide, Ammonia, and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Grasslands
- -Menéndez S., Merino P., Pinto M., Gonzalez-Murno C., Estavillo J.M.
Journal of environmental quality no. 35, p973-981, Peer-reviewed article, 2006
- Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta-analysis
- -Akiyama H., Yani X., Yagi K.
Global change biology, no. 16, 1837-1846, Peer-reviewed article, 2010
- Fertilization: Nitrification inhibitor put to the test
- -Castillon P. (arvalis)
Cultivar no. 602, p14-15, Press article, 2004
- Slow- and Controlled-Release and Stabilized Fertilizers
- -Trenkel M.E. (IFA)
Technical brochure, 2010
6. Keywords
Bioagressor control method: Cultural control
Mode of action: Mitigation
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Redesign
Annexes
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
