A newly published article in the Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science explains how enhanced efficiency fertilizers (EEFs) can help maximize yields while reducing farmers’ chances of hurting their pocketbooks or the planet. EEFs include controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs) and slow-release fertilizers (SRFs).
Hardeep Singh, a University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) assistant professor of cropping systems, is the corresponding author of the article. The publication is a product of the UF/IFAS Nutrient Management Program.
“Enhanced efficiency fertilizer technology is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but it’s an important tool in a broader nutrient management strategy,” Singh said. “Long-term success depends on matching the right fertilizer to the crop, soil and climate conditions.”
Although the human population has more than doubled since 1960, food production has been able to keep up thanks to fertilizer inputs, according to the article. But overall agriculture nutrient-use efficiency — a measure of how well plants use nutrients relative to yield — is low. It ranges from 10% to 55%, depending on crops and conditions. That’s because conventional fertilizers deliver nutrients quickly, so they can’t support the different stages of plant development over time.
PROVEN BENEFITS
Singh and his co-authors describe how CRFs and SRFs provide nutrients gradually as plants need them. These fertilizers accomplish this through features like polymer coatings and microbial induced nutrient release, which limit water solubility and reduce losses.
The UF/IFAS researchers cite previous studies demonstrating the power of EEFs. One study equated EEF use with an increased nutrient-use efficiency of between 45.9% and 53.8% in wheat and between 36.2% and 45.4% in maize compared to conventional fertilizer.
EEF use has also been shown to minimize the environmental risks sometimes associated with conventional fertilizers, including nutrient leaching, toxic nutrient concentrations and acidification of soils, according to the article.
BARRIERS TO USE
Despite the many benefits of EEFs, barriers, such as grower concerns about return on investment, slow their widespread adoption. CRFs and SRFs cost about four times as much as conventional fertilizers. However, the added expense is offset by greater crop yields and lower labor costs because nutrients are sustained throughout the growing season, and fewer fertilizer applications are necessary.
Some growers are also discouraged by a lack of guidance for incorporating EEFs into their existing practices.
“For growers who have access to localized recommendations and support, EEFs often prove to be a valuable tool,” he said. “Continued field-based research and demonstration are essential to help determine where and when the benefits truly outweigh the disadvantages.”
Based on Singh’s knowledge of Florida agriculture operations, he estimates between 20% and 30% of growers in the state use EEFs.
“Grower perceptions are gradually shifting from skepticism to cautious acceptance,” Singh said. “This change is driven by increased educational outreach, more cost-share opportunities and evidence from local trials showing improved nutrient-use efficiency and crop responses under certain conditions.”
Source: UF/IFAS
Share this Post