Eric van Kaathoven

The Use of Coatings to Improve Fertilizer Efficiency

19/10/2017

Ekompany International B.V.

-Since 1/2/2016 part of Kingenta Ecological Engineering Group Co. Ltd
-Key products: specialty fertilizers for horticulture/agriculture
-Based in Born, The Netherlands, focus on Controlled Release Fertilizers (CRF)

20-10-2017
 Coated Fertilizers development
In more detail:
• Nutrient Efficiency
• Fertilizer types
• Typical performance: Release, Soil migration & Complexity
• Controlled Release Fertilizers (CRF) past & development
• CRF efficiency
• Carbon footprint
• CRF vs. legislation
• Summary
 Nutrient efficiency
NUE= Nutrient Use Efficiency
Achieve intended outcome with the lowest input
Differentiation between Agronomical and Ecological context
Input Outcome
Highest level: Agro-Eco-system
Resources Agricultural goods
Impact on environment
and health

Medium level: Field

Seed Maximum harvest
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Labour
Lowest level: Plant
Nutrients Max yield (quality and
quantity) of desired
product
 Nutrient efficiency
NUE= Nutrient Use Efficiency
NUE=crop nutrient removal/nutrient input x 100%

On average NUE is only 53-56%

Source: FAO, IFA, Yara

Improvements mainly due to more precision agriculture:

genetics, environment, technology and management.
Also push via regulations.
 Conventional-Inhibitors-SRF-CRF
Key fertilizer types
Conventional fertilizers CONV

Inhibitors (nitrification/urease) SRF-N

Stabilized Nitrogen Fertilisers (SNF) E.g. ENTEC (DMPP), Agrotain (NBPT)

Less soluble/degradable minerals (chemical of bio process)

SRF-N
Inorganic slow soluble minerals

E.g. Formaldehyde (UF/MU), IsoButylidene DiUrea

Organic - N slow soluble minerals
(IBDU), CrotonylideneDiUrea (CDU)

Physical coating

E.g. Sulphur coated urea (SCU) or polymer sulphur “S”RF

Inorganic coating
coated urea (PSCU)

Organic polymer coating E.g. Alkyd resin, Latex, PolyUrethane CRF

 Typical Performance
Conventional: release in days-few weeks, depending on water. N, P and K.
With rainfall or high water level dissolved nutrients start to migrate.
Inhibitors: N available in week-approx. 2 months, depending on water,
temperature, soil life, only N.
With rainfall or high water level dissolved nutrients start to migrate.
Speed of N conversion depending on several climate/soil parameters and
inhibitor type.
SRF: release weeks-4/5 months,
depending on water, temperature, soil life.
High start release, only N.
Migration in soil is less for non dissolved
slow N parts.
Speed of N conversion depending on
several climate/soil parameters.
 Typical Performance
CRF: release 1-18 months, depending mainly on temperature. N, P, K
CRF efficiency gain vs. conventional fertilizers is depending on rainfall/water and
soil type (leaching)
CRF-urea has much less volatilization due to slow release, pH change limited.
CRF due to coating layer stays in place,
no migration in soil, roots can develop
towards CRF granule for max. efficiency
and uptake.
CRF gives steady release, less stress
and better quality crops
CRF are more complex to apply due to
added variable: release time per
nutrient, fitting crop uptake pattern
 CRF in past
CRF
• Considered as expensive
• Mainly for Ornamental / Golf courses
• Processes small and batch wise, real niche
markets

Last 10 years shifting attention CRF

• Plantation applications
• Higher value fruit/vegetable crops
• More focus on Agriculture
• Higher capacity systems developed, cost/process
awareness
 Developments CRF
• Several CRF producers are focussing more on Agriculture and adapt
more suitable processes
– Develop low(er) cost coating and related processes
– Switch more towards continuous systems (lower investment/ton
capacity, lower labour costs)
– Lower energy usage, less environmental impact
• Impact of CRF in fertilization practice can be
significant on the long term, slow transition.
Higher volume also means lower costs.

• A field trial with some calculations

Maize field trial
Zea mays
Open field production

Location: test field in Twisteden, Germany

Trial period: 22 May – 18 September 2013
Dosage based on N-advice N-total: 162 kg/ha
Single application for all 2 test objects was performed
Composition N-P-K Nitrogen Product
Name Product N P K CaO MgO dosage rate
Calcium Ammonium
27 * * * * 162 kg/ha (=100%) 600 kg/ha
Nitrate
Common
practice Super Phosphate * 45 * 24 * * 130 kg/ha

Potash * * 30 * 10 * 610 kg/ha

Ekote Ekote 7603 (5-6M) 14 6 15 6 2 81 kg/ha (=50%) 579 kg/ha

 Results field trial
1200

1000

800
Gram

600
Common practice

400 Ekote 7603

200

0
Length (cm) Fresh weight leaf Fresh weight cobs Total plant weight
(gr) (gr) (gr)

Fresh weight Fresh weight Total plant

Object Length (cm)
leaf (gr) cobs (gr) weight (gr)

Common practice 285,4 633,8 313,8 947,6

Ekote 7603 291,3 685,6 315,2 1000,8
 Concluding remarks field trial
Conclusions:
• Ekote performed better than the common practice with 50% lower N-dosage.
• Ekote produced cobs with higher average fresh weight compared to common
practice.
• No phytotoxicity was observed.

Translating trial data:

• North-West Europe market size Maize approx. 7.100.000 ha
• Assuming only N as CRF
160kg N/ha => 1.136.000 ton N/year as conventional fertilizer.
• Translated into N-CRF
50% N reduction => 568.000 ton N/year less use of conventional N
• Additional slow degradable organic coating into the soil (4 kg/ha or 28.500 ton)

• Differences in usage are losses to the environment (ground/surface) water and air.
• Practice estimated 40-60% of the soils suitable for CRF in NW-Europe (“non-clay”)
 Green and Efficient
Environmental impact, example coated urea
On like for like bases estimated approx. 30-50% efficiency gain possible with sandy/peat
soils with average rainfall and reasonably matching nutrient release/uptake
Upto 70-75% efficiency gains possible in tropical climates with high rainfall!
Carbon Footprint Urea
Urea 4.232 kg CO2/ton urea 9.200 kg CO2/ton N
CRF-Urea
4.318 kg CO2/ton urea 10.042 kg CO2/ton CRF-N
(2-3months release)
Efficiency gain 30% Assumption
Urea Carbon Footprint 4.232 kg CO2/ton urea
CRF-Urea Carbon Footprint 4.620 kg CO2/ton CRF Recalculated as 46%N
CRF-Urea incl efficiency gain 3.234 kg CO2/ton CRF Recalculated as 46%N
CRF-Urea incl efficiency gain 7.030 kg CO2/ton CRF-N Recalculated as 46%N
CRF-Urea vs. Urea 2.170 kg CO2/ton N less 23,5% less CO2/ton N
Source: Yara, SKW Piesteritz, Merquinsa, Dutch government (CBS, ministeries), own calculations

Per 1 million ton conventional N conversion a saving of approx. 2,1 million ton CO2 possible
 Coating vs. Legislation
• Most CRF coatings are supposed to work upto 18 months in the soil.
• Coating degradation to be minimized during release period to avoid leaking granules.
Slow degradation by definition.
• Most CRF coatings are based on (partly) vegetable oils, fits the circular economy idea.
• Coatings do not show phytotoxicity (current knowledge), polymers not REACH classified.
• CRF’s already exist for over 40 years and did prove their potential.

• All CRF coatings are not biodegradable according to the current EU proposal (2 yrs 80%
converted into CO2).
• Why 2 years as degradation period and not e.g. 10 or 20 years? Organic matter via e.g.
compost added to soil is important but also does not degrade in 2 year for at least 80%?
• Biodegradability testing method takes 2 years.
• Comparison coating/polymer amounts vs. other parts of proposal not logical.
• As industry try to adjust concept on degradation and in the same time put effort in
research on degradation of coating

• Weighing efficiency gain vs. requested polymer degradation time frame not in proposal
Example: converting 1 million ton conventional N (urea) into CRF-urea gives:
+ Saving of 2.1 million ton CO2
+ 650.000 ton urea not lost into ground/surface water or into air
– In soil approx. 76.000 ton slowly degradable coating polymer added
 QualitativeConventional
comparison
Inhibitor
SRF
CRF

High

Low

Efficiency Matching release Cost Cost Carbon Coating Complexity

“NUE” vs uptake nutrients /ton /ha footprint degradability
 Overall conclusion
Pro CRF
• Significant advantages vs other fertilizers if crop cycle is > 2 months:
– NUE shows strong improvement: or higher yield or less fertilizer need
– Better quality and less labour
• Strongly improved carbon footprint
• Significantly less leaching to the environment
• Environmental pressure reduces allowed fertilizer usage

Con CRF
• Slow degradable coating into the environment
• More complex in advice/use to extra variable (release time), therefore more
different products needed
• Per kg more expensive, per hectare difference getting less and less
• Proposed EU legislation does not fit CRF coating requirements on degradation,
work to be done…
• Agriculture implementation takes time and effort