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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
Comment