• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Massive Farm Protest in Belgium

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    https://www.producer.com/news/emissions-reductions-possible/

    Emissions reductions possible
    By
    Karen Briere
    Reading Time: 5 minutes

    Published: September 1, 2022

    Research has shown that reducing emissions from fertilizer by 30 percent is attainable. Work now is focusing on how to apply newer technologies across Canada’s many soil and climatic conditions to make sure yields don’t suffer and farmers remain profitable.

    Dr. Mario Tenuta, a researcher at the University of Manitoba, said he is puzzled by the controversy over the federal government’s 2030 target.

    “They looked at our data and everybody else’s data and they said 30 percent is achievable,” he said in an interview. “They didn’t pull it out of their ears. It’s a realistic number that’s actually fairly conservative.”

    Tenuta is the senior industrial research chair in 4R Nutrient Management and heads the Applied Soil Ecology Lab at the university.

    He said research in Manitoba has found several practices to be extremely effective in reducing nitrous oxide emissions.

    Nitrification inhibitors, split fertilizer applications and legume crops all reduce emissions significantly.

    Producers are already using nitrification inhibitors, although not widely, he said. But producers who adopt the products could be eligible for financial assistance through the federal government’s On-Farm Climate Action Fund. Organizations such as the Canola Council of Canada, the Manitoba Association of Watersheds and the Saskatchewan Association of Watersheds are operating these programs on behalf of the federal government.

    This is one of the ways the federal government is encouraging emissions reduction.

    Split applications of nitrogen help make sure the fertilizer is available when the plant needs it, rather than allowing it to convert to nitrous oxide. Tenuta said more data is needed to prove out the best split application method because there are so many combinations and variations of application methods, products and rates.

    He said growing a legume is actually the most effective way to reduce emissions.

    “If we increase the proportion of those pulses in rotation then overall for that rotation it brings down the emissions,” he said.

    Models showed that when Manitoba growers moved heavily into soybean production, the province’s nitrous oxide emissions stabilized.

    A product that has been shown to provide mixed results across Canada is polymer coated urea, commonly known as ESN. The federal program is not offering subsidies for growers who use this product because it isn’t effective everywhere.

    “Where it’s wet during the growing season it’s been found that ESN can have as high emissions as urea,” Tenuta said. “It’s because ESN delivers its urea nitrogen later, and if it’s still wet when it’s being delivered, you can get nitrous oxide emitted.”

    Prairie farmers found that ESN works on that landscape because it’s generally drier into the growing season and Tenuta said the product did reduce emissions in Manitoba research. But the government wants technologies that work everywhere as part of its 30-percent emissions reduction goal.

    At the University of Saskatchewan, Rich Farrell is leading similar research. He is the agriculture ministry’s strategic research program chair in soil biological processes.

    He said it’s clear reductions in nitrous oxide emissions are possible.

    “It’s unfortunate it’s become sort of political,” he said. “That’s a very simplistic view of everything. Yes (reducing fertilizer use) would achieve the emissions reduction but that’s not going to help maintain yields and profits.

    “I think a 20 percent reduction is going to be relatively easy to get to, and then the next 10 percent is going to be a little more work.”

    Farrell said his work on enhanced efficiency fertilizers found emissions reductions between 15 and 60 percent.

    Nitrification inhibitor products were more consistent in results and tended to have higher reductions, he said.

    “Things with urease inhibitors or slow-release products tended to be a little less consistent, more impacted by weather than some of the others, but you were still seeing reductions with them.”

    The 60 percent reduction in emissions came with no impact on yields, Farrell said.

    Nitrification inhibitor products do cost more, but Farrell said companies have suggested farmers could apply 20 to 30 percent less. They could save money on inputs while reducing emissions and maintaining yield.

    “The reality is farmers get paid for their crop, not for reducing emissions, so unless there’s some other incentive from the government to reduce emissions, everything is going to be based on yield,” he said.

    Farrell said the message to farmers from researchers for the last 10 years has been that if they follow best management practices to get the best agronomic outputs, they will also get the environmental benefits because they are using applied inputs most efficiently.

    Micro-organisms in the soil compete with plants for nitrogen and Farrell said farmers clearly want the plants to win. Synchronizing nitrogen availability with when the crop needs it allows that to happen.

    Farrell said more research is needed in all aspects of nitrous oxide reduction. He is part of several projects currently underway for funding from the next round of government funding.

    “We need more information on when these things are going to work,” he said.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    In last year’s horrible drought, studies that compared regular and enhanced efficiency fertilizers showed no difference.

    “There was no impact whatsoever because the whole system crashed because of the drought,” he said. “Under those conditions you would have paid extra for the fertilizer and you’d have gotten zero benefit.”

    This year a large study looking at canola production with an enhanced efficiency product at the fertilizer recommended rate and at 10, 20 and 30 percent below that recommendation will examine optimum yield potential and emissions reductions. Data will be coming in this fall.

    Farrell said the same practice won’t work everywhere and that’s why research is so important.

    A good example is no-till. Although in the West it’s well known that the practice has reduced emissions, he said research in Ontario has shown no-till results in higher emissions.

    “That’s because the soils are different, the climate is different, the systems are different,” he said. “What works here doesn’t work there and I think it’s going to be the same with some of these products.”

    He also said sampling one field once a year won’t give a true picture.

    “We’re out in the field 35, 45 times a year taking measurements and trying to sort of catch emissions events,” he said.

    Farrell pointed to fall fertilizer application as a concern because 60 to 70 percent of an entire year’s worth of emissions can occur in a two-week spring thaw period. Yet, producers want to apply in fall because they have time then, so there might be a role for enhanced efficiency products in fall applications.

    Both Farrell and Tenuta said gathering more data is key.

    Tenuta this year helped start a project to develop a network to gather nitrous oxide research from across the country and help make models more accurate.

    Farrell said models have to be used because the research would require so much testing. It is already costly and requires a lot of people to do properly.

    Gathering all the information, putting it into machine-learning algorithms and using artificial intelligence will improve the models and develop better recommendations as the 2030 reductions target nears.

    Tenuta also said the economics of the technologies and practices requires more research. He encouraged farmers to know the costs of adopting new products on their farms. He suggested they can test a part of their field by using regular fertilizer and a new product to see what happens.

    He said farmers already expect nitrogen losses at the rates they use now.

    “We’ve been putting the (recommended) rates on expecting losses,” said Tenuta. “If you reduce your losses, now you have to reconsider your rates. I advise them to try out reducing the rate of nitrogen to cover the cost of the practice. I’m not advocating 30 percent here; what we’re talking about is eight percent, 10 percent, 12 percent, something like that to cover the cost of these more expensive practices like inhibitors.”

    Comment


      #17
      Thank you again Chuck, for more civil posts related to agriculture.

      Your cut and paste highlights some valid points and research.

      One practice I take issue with is split application.
      Works great on row crops where it can be side dressed. Or under irrigation where it can be washed in with irrigation water. For dryland solid seeded crops, neither of those are an option. Even treated products can be up to 100% loss when broadcast with no possibility of incorporation.

      Pulses look great on paper. This year, according to the AFSC yield magazine, peas yielded approximately half of what my wheat did, at the same price per bushel. Yielded the same as my canola, at half the price per bushel. That isn't economically sustainable, even at high fertilizer prices. Government can't wave their magic wand and double the price of pulses.
      Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Mar 18, 2023, 09:14.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by blackpowder View Post
        Not sure if this fits here or should be a thread starter of it's own.
        Today sat through a presentation on proposed N reductions by an industry rep who was in the room near the beginning of this process.
        It is incomprehensible how little our law writers know about agriculture foreign or domestic, chemistry, world trade or the basic laws of economics. The latter the most concerning. I came away truly speechless. And our powerlessness leaves me a little numb. Even after discounting the usual East-West bias at play.
        The climate change bogey man isn't going anywhere. But the current path by the ruling class is headed for an iceberg. And we're in steerage.
        All of the malicious incompetence you observed being perpetrated on the fertilizer file is also occurring at government departments affecting all aspects of society.
        All of the same hubris and condescending authoritarian
        arrogance and ignorance is behind the destruction of our energy sources, electricity grids, transportation sector, Justice system, education system, military, law enforcement, environmental regulation, immigration, etc.
        Big brother knows best.
        These decision-making positions are infested with blind ideologues and useful idiots. Far too smart to ever consult with the lowly boots on the ground proletariat, just consult the computer models.
        Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Mar 19, 2023, 10:08.

        Comment


          #19
          We can all tell he doesn't rely on his living from a commercial enterprise. He certainly doesn't grain farm in Western Canada if he even read that whole article.
          30% emissions reductions started discussion as 30% total usage reduction by the way. The Honorable Minister had no clue.
          We produce 11.8 MMTCO2, the world is 52300. 30% reduction would be 3.5 MMT of the 52,300. We average 66kg N/ha China 198 (some double cropping) India 111
          Eastern provinces far more emissions per tonne than here in West. Read that again. Our (zero till) current sequestration rate is not discounted from our (western) totals.
          Latest study shows 20% fert reduction=10% less crop.
          Not going to fact check, sorry, but something like 0.007% of GHGs
          Broadacre dryland cover crops are called long term pasture. But...no money in cows haha. Peas here need an 8 yr rotation from disease.
          Low hanging fruit is soil testing, section control and VR. Wow, thanks for that!!!
          Western Canadian fert efficiency is already nearly the highest in the world!!! Proven. Sales losses in the billions by 2028 if this goes ahead as planned. Note I said planned, not proposed.
          Latest was $110/t extra for ESN?
          Even dual inhibitors just slow down volatilization and that's dependant on moisture, time, and temp.
          RDAR pays you only for the extra cost and only if you haven't used before. A sick joke. A sick joke as I've tried to make them pay here and alas, they do not.
          If all the people who wish to ignore economic reality for 0.007% GHGs are willing to buy me out at full market rate and farm the Farmers for Climate Solutions way, they have my blessings. After I have my check.
          I am already as efficient with my resources as I can possibly be as a matter of course, let alone the economic reality under which I reside.
          Constant defiance of the laws of economics, under which the planet resides, and by which innovation evolves, pushes us closer to a tipping point.
          Constant governance by people who have no idea what I'm talking about is certain, eventual ruin. Be alarmed, get vocal.
          And don't tell me our Commissions are as vocal as the old WCWGA or WBGA were. Govt lobby groups my arse!
          Phew! Luckily I don't write for the Seducer and need a mental health day off now.
          Last edited by blackpowder; Mar 18, 2023, 16:14.

          Comment


            #20
            That was more a PSA and belongs in the adult section. I definitely was not concerned with acknowledgement through rebuttal of any poster in the children's section.

            Comment


              #21
              You may not get a rebuttal that has anything to do with the topic but Chack will be back.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20230318-182256_Gallery.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	74.6 KB
ID:	774737

              Comment


                #22
                Then I hope he allows me the assumption that he believes I am all that's wrong with the world as I him. Also, that neither gives a flying fk what the other thinks of himself. I do not wish a point by point debate when a simple "you're full of shit" or an "I disagree" will do. The quintessential 'pig in the mud' scenario.
                If only we had real lobby groups that saw it the same way.

                Comment


                  #23
                  A whole lot of heat (politics) but little light from some of the responses! LOL

                  A5 congratulated me on what I posted and seemed to have little dispute with what I posted and then went on in another post to tell us everything that is wrong in several other areas of unrelated policy in his "opinion".

                  If most farmers aren't soil testing every field, how do they know how to adjust the rates of fertilizer to follow the 4Rs? Its a simple question but no one answered it.

                  I am not saying a lot of farmers are not doing a good and efficient job, but there is room for improvement. And according to Mario Tenuta an expert on 4Rs, the research backs him up.
                  Last edited by chuckChuck; Mar 19, 2023, 08:59.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    You are right chuck, and I apologize for using you as a bad example in my post. You had been nothing but civil in this thread until then, it was uncalled for for me to make the inflammatory remark that I did, and I have now edited it accordingly.
                    Not only did you make three consecutive posts about a topic pertinent to agriculture, you did so without using any LOL's, flat Earth comments, racist labels, or insults. Even better yet, you offered actual potential solutions from relevant sources. Thank you again for contributing to such an important topic. You do have a lot to contribute when you manage to avoid the provocative incendiary comments.
                    Let's keep this civil discussion going.
                    So, which of the suggested solutions have you implemented or will you implement on your farm?
                    How do the economics work out in your area?
                    Is your season long enough for stand alone cover crops?
                    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Mar 19, 2023, 10:19.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Ya, dealers will tell you a lot don't test. I don't bring it up. No farmer ever admits to anything or shares info.
                      An experienced researcher is not experienced at practical interpretation and implementation. His job is counting only. He should not be treated as if knowledge in one implies ability in the other. Essentially he knows the science but not what he's talking about.
                      If you understand that you can do better.
                      Last edited by blackpowder; Mar 19, 2023, 10:22.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        So chuck advocates the govt confiscating farms by force just to regulate a few pounds of fertilizer and sacrifice the business to the fake climate gods.

                        So typical, marxist playbook stuff.

                        Hopefully Putin can take out the WEF clowns before this becomes a thing.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Aw shit he's kept it bottled up quite well and now you go and do that.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by blackpowder View Post
                            Ya, dealers will tell you a lot don't test. I don't bring it up. No farmer ever admits to anything or shares info.
                            An experienced researcher is not experienced at practical interpretation and implementation. His job is counting only. He should not be treated as if knowledge in one implies ability in the other. Essentially he knows the science but not what he's talking about.
                            If you understand that you can do better.
                            Huh?

                            Some farmers have independent agronomists that review soil sample results and make fertilizer and cropping recommendations.

                            They are using the science from the research and on the ground results to make decisions.

                            Some agronomists said that after the 2021 drought some farms didn't know how much carryover of nutrients they had and were about to over fertilizer some of their fields.

                            If you don't soil test how do you know for sure what you got?

                            And of course some agronomists from input suppliers are more likely to tell you not to test and put the same rate on every field.

                            For one thing there is not enough soil testing capacity in place to handle all the potential soil testing.

                            But its an obvious area of potential improvement.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              A researcher as in your posted article is experienced at research, not getting the necessary job done. Nor seeing the whole puzzle. He counts in his own little area. A supply accountant running the whole business. If you own your own business you understand what I'm saying and can do better. In your business and in your posts.
                              By the way. Am considering a NIR system on combine to record protein and or oil content in real time. Correlation to N usage and requirements. Prescription map at N application.
                              No Fezziwig that never wrote a check needs to mandate that. If it pays, I'll do it. As will my competition elsewhere. Hoping you understand this.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                And a tiny bit further.
                                All those years we chased Protein premiums, long before VR, we were wasting N as the yield response curve tips over at about 12%.

                                Comment

                                • Reply to this Thread
                                • Return to Topic List
                                Working...