#18: Summary of Agri-llution

Hello guys!! This will be our last post for the blog! 🙁

We would like to end off with a nice mind-map summarising most of the topics that we have covered in our blog. Do take a look at it for a quick summary of what Agricultural Pollution is and is resulted from.

Summary Mindmap of Agri-llution

Do take note that this list is not exhaustive and there are other topics related to Agricultural Pollution not included!

Thank you for this wonderful journey! 😀

 

Picture referenced from:

Kite-Powell, J., 2020. Welcome To The New World Of Digital Agriculture. [image] Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2020/04/22/welcome-to-the-new-world-of-digital-agriculture/#61668d5510ce> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#17: How we can all play a part to reduce Agricultural Pollution

Hi folks, welcome back! 😀

As we are wrapping up our blog 🙁 , we thought it would be a good idea to share how we can play our part, as individuals, to help in the reduction of Agricultural Pollution! As many of us would know, Agriculture is a huge industry in the world we live in and we might feel that we are very out of touch of the pollution processes to help in the reduction of pollution.

Here are some ways that we can reduce our own footprints to in effect, reduce Agricultural Pollution:

  1. Choose environmentally-friendly food sources
    • Certain food products cultivate the habit of using antibiotic resistance, and some utilise massive use of pesticides and fertilisers. Even products from your local supermarket may carry such branding.
    • Perhaps shop at the organic section from time to time. Although it may be more expensive, organic food cultivate their products using natural sources, unlike non-organic products which may utilise synthetic chemicals which is terribly bad for human health [4].
    • A small step could be to alternate your diet with organic food from time to time, slowly and progressively leaning towards organic produce. Every step counts, even if it is a little change in our consumption behaviour.
  2. Reduce consumption of meat and choose alternative food
    • Not only does the consumption of meat lead to possible enteric fermentation and eutrophication, animal rearing use up massive amounts of water, vegetation and produce a huge amount of waste.
    • In the global perspective, animal rearing accounts for 14.5 to 18% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.
    • The most concerning meats  are lamb and beef. It produces 20 times more greenhouse gases per gram of protein compared to other plant proteins, such as beans.
    • This diagram shows how resource intensive it is to produce lamb and beef compared to other foods:

      Greenhouse gas emissions produced to the production of certain food

    • A possible step to reduce agricultural pollution would be to swap your proteins in your diet to less resource intensive foods such as beans and nuts.
  3. Reduce food wastage
    • The massive agricultural expansion is also due to our massive demand for supply of food despite the fact that we still waste a lot of food.
    • In a global scale, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, it is estimated that 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted annually. This is 1/3 of all the food produced for human consumption. The amount of food lost or wasted in monetary terms can be equated to be 2.6 trillion USD annually which is more than enough to feed all the 815 million starving people in the world for 4 times! 🙁
    • Closer to home, in Singapore as a whole, we are wasting 342 million SGD of food annually! For a easier reference, that is 52 plates of Nasi Lemak a year per household!

Singapore household food wastage infographic

Food wastage in Singapore as a whole

    •  With what has been mentioned above, we should learn to be more responsible citizens! We should have a habit of purchasing the portions that we can finish.
    • Hopefully. with a lower demand in food, the agricultural industry would not be producing so much excess food a year which is only going to waste! This could possible reduce the amount of unnecessary pollution produced to the environment and the ecosystem.

This list is not exhaustive and there is many more ways we can help with the reduction of Agricultural Pollution. But with small steps,  everyone can play their part in reducing Agri-llution! 😀

References:

Folk, E., 2019. 10 Keys to an Eco-Friendly Diet. The Environmental Magazine, [online] Available at: <https://emagazine.com/10-keys-to-an-eco-friendly-diet/> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

Robinson, L., Segal, J. and Segal, R., 2020. Organic Foods: What You Need To Know – Helpguide.Org. [online] Helpguide.org. Available at: <https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

Friedman, L., Pierre-Louis, K. and Sengupta, S., 2018. The Meat Question, by the Numbers. The New York Times, [online] Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

R. Waite, T. Searchinger and J. Ranganathan, “6 Pressing Questions About Beef and Climate Change, Answered”, World Resources Institute, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/04/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered. [Accessed: 24- Jul- 2020].

Depta, L., 2018. Global Food Waste And Its Environmental Impact | Green Living. [online] RESET.to. Available at: <https://en.reset.org/knowledge/global-food-waste-and-its-environmental-impact-09122018> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

2019. Advancing A Circular Economy For Food: Key Drivers And Recommendations To Reduce Food Loss And Waste In Singapore. [ebook] Singapore: Singapore Environment Council (SEC), pp.Page 9, Page 11. Available at: <http://sec.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SEC_Food-Loss-Study.pdf> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | 2 comments

#16: EU Directives on Nitrates and Pesticides

Welcome back everyone! The future of agricultural pollution is not all bleak as there are measures put in place to allow the environment to gradually revert back to a time where there was less pollution. In this post, we aim to summarise some of the directives and legislations that the EU has implemented, especially against the use of excess pesticides and nitrates in fertilisers.

The use of pesticides in agriculture can help to fight crop pests, therefore increasing quality and yield of the crop. However, in the past few decades, it is realised that pesticide overuse can lead to serious health and environmental impacts. Therefore, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was introduced in 1962, which implements a series of agricultural subsidies and programmes that has been revised and revamped throughout the years. Embedded within the CAP, there are some policies that not only target the use of pesticides, but also promote the sustainable use of plant protection.

Here are some of the policies and measures stated within the CAP:

  • Direct payments are not given to farmers who can generate the highest yield, this minimises the need for farm owners to use excess pesticides just to garner greater yield
  • “Green” direct payments are disbursed to farm owners who adopt farming practices that help take a step towards achieving environmental and climate goals
  • Cross-compliance rules state that farm owners will receive a cut from their payments if they do not adhere to the EU laws associated to environment, climate change, good agricultural condition of land, human, animal and plant health standards and animal welfare
  • These cross-compliance rules include conditions for use of pesticides, especially with regards to fruits and vegetables, where a minimum 10% of spending in operational programmes must go towards environmental actions
  • Agri-environmental measures are geared towards minimising the risks of environmental degradation and improve the sustainability of agro-ecosystems

It is the responsibility of the farm advisory systems to alert farm owners about conditions under cross-compliance, green direct payments, water framework directive and the directive on sustainable pesticide use. With regards to organic farming, chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely prohibited.

A summary of the EU Nitrates Directive

The use of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers to supply the crops with nutrients to grow quickly and in abundance helps to boost crop yield. However, it is not sustainable as they stimulate eutrophication upon reaching water bodies. Therefore, the EU’s Nitrates Directive was introduced in 1991. The directive aims to achieve reduction in water pollution by nitrates from agricultural sources and to promoting good farming practices.

This directive is enforced by the EU countries. These countries would need to ensure that agricultural water quality is regularly inspected, demarcate areas which could become heavily contaminated by nitrates once applied, as well as establish acts of good agricultural practices. With regards to the areas easily contaminated by nitrates, the directive restricts up to 170kg as the maximum annual limit of nitrogen from livestock manure (used as fertilisers) that can be applied per hectare. Acts of good agricultural practice include adhering to fertiliser application periods, fertiliser application areas, manure storage methods, manure spreading methods as well as certain land management measures. Every 4 years, member states are required to report on the nitrates concentrations in waters, presence of eutrophication, any revisions in the areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution as well as future trends in water quality.

At present, as with many other solutions or legislations implemented to curb pollution stemming from agriculture, there are limitations which hamper its environmental success. It is worthy to note that studies mention a hiccup in its intended success is due to a lack of governance-oriented debate. Only with this debate, the knowledge of the policy and directive performances can then be fully understood. To overcome this limitation, it is encouraged that member states be required to provide to EU Commission a thorough assessment of the governance dynamics that reinforce the policy and directive implementation, along with the 4-yearly environmental monitoring report.

References:

Musacchio, A., Re, V., Mas-Pla, J. and Sacchi, E., 2019. EU Nitrates Directive, from theory to practice: Environmental effectiveness and influence of regional governance on its performance. Ambio, 49(2), pp.504-516.

European Commission – European Commission. 2020. Pesticides In Agriculture. [online] Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/low-input-farming/pesticides_en> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

European Commission – European Commission. 2020. Nitrates. [online] Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/low-input-farming/nitrates_en> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

Ec.europa.eu. 2020. Nitrates – Water Pollution – Environment – European Commission. [online] Available at: <https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html> [Accessed 24 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#15: Buffer Zones along Farm Boundaries

In many of the previous posts, there is a lot that is mentioned regarding water pollution as a result of intensified agriculture. This post will be focussed on a possible solution that could minimise the risk of water pollution.

One approach to solving the water pollution problem is the creation of buffer zones between the polluting farms and receiving waters. A buffer zone refers to a permanently vegetated area of land which is roughly 5-100m in width, preferably placed adjacent to a watercourse. The buffer zone works by providing a biochemical and physical barrier between the pollution source and the receiving water body.

The working mechanism of the buffer zone is relatively simple. The buffer zone spreads and separates the incoming flow of pollutants, minimising its fluid velocity. This increases infiltration and subsequently reduces the water depth on the surface. Huge particles fall to the bottom as sediments while suspended particles get filtered through leaf litter and soil. The remaining pollutants get trapped in the soil of the buffer zone, which allows for decay and subsequent absorption by plant roots or adsorption onto soil particles. The removal of pollutants transported in particulate form varies according to the buffer zone’s capacity of reducing energy of the incoming flow to allow pollutant particle settling. On the contrary, the removal of pollutants transported in dissolved form depends on the ability of the buffer zone to stall the runoff long enough to facilitate the pollutants breaking down, for subsequent absorption by plants.

The effectiveness of a buffer zone is determined by a number of factors. We must consider its physical structure, the type of pollutants it must handle and the closeness of the buffer zone to the pollution source. As for agricultural catchments, they are usually located in areas of low slope where the uplands were already cleared without any buffer. Such runoff from the uplands gets channelled away in the upper catchment and could flow out of the catchment without passing through the buffer downstream. This results in a huge loss of nutrients, which in this case are pollutants, that ultimately enters water bodies and causes water pollution.

In order to ensure the effectiveness of buffering for agricultural catchments, the buffer zones should ideally extend along tributary streams, so that none of the polluting sources will be left out and allowed to channel away. Hence, all polluting sources have to pass through buffer zones to trap the pollutants, as represented in the figure below.

Ideal agricultural catchment buffer zone

Regarding the effectiveness of buffer zones towards pesticides in agriculture, it has shown commendable results. In a study conducted by Asmussen et al. (1997), it was reported that herbicide 2,4-D were reduced along a buffer zone by 77% and 69% in wet and dry conditions. In a similar study by Rohde et al. (1980), there was evidence of trifluralin loss of 96% and 86% in wet and dry conditions. The large reduction of pesticide loss can be attributed to water infiltration, sediment deposition and attachment on vegetative and organic matter.

References:

Muscutt, A., Harris, G., Bailey, S. and Davies, D., 1993. Buffer zones to improve water quality: a review of their potential use in UK agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 45(1-2), pp.59-77.

Norris, V., 1993. The use of buffer zones to protect water quality: A review. Water Resources Management, 7(4), pp.257-272.

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#14: Agricultural Water Pollution from Livestock Waste

Hello everyone! Although it is our 5th and final week into the GE3246 Special Term module, and we are still learning new things about agricultural pollution and can’t wait to share them with you guys (:

Former National Compliance Initiative: Preventing Animal Waste ...

Livestock waste deposited directly into water body

The manure from livestock can be very problematic. This is the case whether uncontrolled release of waste or when initially placing them into lagoons.

In particular, uncontrolled livestock waste is a direct source of pollution for surface and groundwater sources. Their mixing with surface water can severely impact the water quality and cause the death of living organisms. Not only that, there is a high Biological Oxygen Demand due to the organic materials found in waste. Their waste is a source of atmospheric ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These excess nutrients and organic matter is a stimulant for growth of algae in water bodies. The heavy metals and harmful bacteria directly found in animal waste could also leach into and contaminate water supplies. Also not to mention, there are traces of ammonia and bad odour when there is a spread of this waste slurry across the land.

We tend to assume that if the animal manure is managed, there would be no problems at all. However, this is not true. Let me explain why! Animal wastes are stored in pits or open ponds, otherwise known as lagoons. These “waste containers” are hastily dug, they do not have a lining to prevent leaching of harmful pollutants. In the case of large storms, these containers might even be torn apart, spilling out all the animal waste slurry in a horrific sight! In order to combat this problem, some large-scale farms spray this spilt manure onto the farm fields. The environmental pollution caused by all the raptured lagoons, spraying and leaching can be very detrimental. Surface and groundwaters get contaminated with excess nutrients from animal waste. Nitrates, heavy metals or even pathogenic bacteria can leach into water supplies, causing morbidity and illness.

It is estimated that a total of 2 billion tonnes of liquid fraction and waste is generated annually from US alone, while China’s livestock farms generate nearly 4 billion tonnes of waste annually. Hence, with lots of meat consumers around, many livestock has to be reared, causing a lot of pollution to enter aquatic ecosystems or even water supplies. However, as consumers, we don’t often see the direct impacts from our consumption, as the pollution is outsourced to countries which rely on agriculture as their main source of revenue.

References:

Polat, H. and Olgun, M., 2006. Water pollution from livestock wastes and required strategies in efforts to adapt to European Union. International Water Association,.

FoodPrint. 2020. How Industrial Agriculture Causes Water Pollution | Foodprint. [online] Available at: <https://foodprint.org/issues/how-industrial-agriculture-affects-our-water/> [Accessed 20 July 2020].

Gu, H. and Mason, J., 2017. Energy Hogs: China Targets Farm Waste As A ‘Clean’ Power Source. [online] U.S. Available at: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-livestock-waste/energy-hogs-china-targets-farm-waste-as-a-clean-power-source-idUSKCN1BA16V#:~:text=Chinese%20livestock%20farms%20generate%20nearly,according%20to%20the%20agriculture%20ministry.> [Accessed 20 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | One comment

#13: Agricultural Pollution from the burning of forests :(

Hi guys! Today we shall talk more about agriculture as a whole.

Agricultural expansion is one of the leading deforestation reasons, falling second to timber harvesting which accounts for  37% of the loss of the Intact Forest Landscape (IFL). During the years between 2000 to 2013, agricultural expansion made up for approximately 28% of  the IFL that we have chopped down.

Did you also know that besides our oceans being carbon sinks, our forests can account for 30% of carbon emission absorption?

Well, how does this link to agricultural pollution then?

How agricultural expansion results in the exacerbation of climate change and global warming

When we burn our forests for the purpose of agricultural farming (growing of crops) or animal rearing, we are equivalently reducing our carbon sinks which is one of our key partners in helping in climate change and global warming. We are also chopping logs and burning off the stumps which remain on the land. Our burning of forests account for the second highest global carbon emitter! We are not only reducing our carbon absorbers, we are producing more carbon than we can handle!

The burning of forests also leads to these processes:

  1. Direct air pollution from burning forests
  2. Destroy ecosystems – destroy native plants and biodiversity that use forests as habitats
  3. Slashes biodiversity – force biodiversity to live in smaller areas, may force them to extinction
  4. Erodes land – lands are unable to absorb water or retain soil (soil layer was bulldozed), may exacerbate flooding, cause soil erosion or landslides that may end up in our nearby rivers (aquatic pollution)
  5. Spoils water supply – introduction of new sediments, nutrients, and surface runoff (such as herbicides which are pesticides used to kill unwanted plants) to water catchments. May also ruin clean groundwater for certain populations (aquatic pollution)
  6. Reverse carbon sinks – forests naturally absorb more carbon compared to the production of carbon due to photosynthesis, but removal of them results in lesser effective carbon absorbers [replacement plantation such as oil palm usually are less effective in being carbon sinks than that of the forests, worse if the land is used for animal rearing – produce more greenhouse gases especially cows!  (Refer to #7: Enteric Fermentation)]
  7. Results in degradation of social toll on indigenous groups – some groups of people use forests for cultural purposes, cultural history may be damaged

The process of agricultural expansion is not really a positive thing with such negative impacts to the environment. We should always look for possible alternative solutions instead of destroying of more forests such as vertical farming, utilising existing clear land without further destruction of further forests (not only because land is scarce) or perhaps choose alternative food that comes from more environmentally friendly roots.

References:

Lindwall, C., 2019. Industrial Agricultural Pollution 101. [online] NRDC. Available at: <https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agricultural-pollution-101> [Accessed 7 July 2020].

Denchak, M., 2017. Want To Fight Climate Change? Stop Clearcutting Our Carbon Sinks.. [online] NRDC. Available at: <https://www.nrdc.org/stories/stop-clearcutting-carbon-sinks> [Accessed 19 July 2020].

Nrcan.gc.ca. 2020. Forest Carbon | Natural Resources Canada. [online] Available at: <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/climate-change-impacts-forests/forest-carbon/13085> [Accessed 19 July 2020].

Rainforest Action Network, 2017. How many trees are cut down every year?. [Blog] THE UNDERSTORY, Available at: <https://www.ran.org/the-understory/how_many_trees_are_cut_down_every_year/> [Accessed 19 July 2020].

Intactforests.org. n.d. World’s Intact Forest Landscapes, 2000-2013. [online] Available at: <http://intactforests.org/world.map.html> [Accessed 19 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#12: Ways to Mitigate Climate Change from Enteric Fermentation

Hello everyone! Previously in post #7, we talked about enteric fermentation and its links to climate change from the huge amounts of methane released into the atmosphere. Now, we will discuss some ways that we can cut down on methane emissions per unit of output as well as efficiently capturing the methane to change it to other useful forms of energy.

There are a variety of options that we can consider to reduce the production of methane gas, where all the below proposed solutions aim at improving the quantity and quality of the livestock diet.  Firstly, enteric fermentation emissions can be minimised by increasing feed quantity per head. In doing so, the proportion of feed energy converted to milk and meat is increased compared to than for animal maintenance. Also, emissions can be minimised by improving the quality of feed. This includes improving the quality of concentrate in the diet, replacing fibrous with starch concentrate, increasing the digestibility of forage, using more legumes rather than grass forage, more silage rather than hay and adding oilseeds to the diet.

Tropical forage legumes could boost dairy production profits

Livestock consuming a more legume diet

However, if the methane is already produced in the form of manure, there are ways to change those methane into useful forms of energy. The manure management involves the capture and use of manure to pass them through anaerobic digestors. The methane that is extracted can then be used as a fuel for electric generators, heat and lighting due to their high energy content. This way, the methane is combusted to carbon dioxide and steam, where carbon dioxide is a less powerful greenhouse gas as compared to methane, reducing the effect of climate change.

China Is on Track To Reach Its Ultra-low Emissions Goals For 2020 ...

Methane as a fuel for energy production

References:

Key, N. and Tallard, G., 2011. Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: a global analysis of sectoral policies. Climatic Change, 112(2), pp.387-414.

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#11: Soil Erosion from Agriculture

Soil erosion decreases the soil's capacity to fight global warming ...

Soil Erosion from Agricultural Land Use Change

Humans have the power to influence the functioning of the Earth’s Critical Zone through the activities, that affects major elements of normal soil functioning. In this blog post, we focus on land use change because of agricultural activities. In the last ~50 years, there is rapid increase in agriculture to feed the exploding population size. However, we did not consider what our impacts might be.

Agricultural soil erosion is triggered by vegetation and soil disturbance in upland areas. In the case of agricultural soil erosion, at least 80% of the eroded sediment is re-deposited within a short distance (<5km) of the source, in colluvial or alluvial sediment stores.

There are several impacts of the impact of this erosion. Firstly, there will be huge losses of N for the crops. Since soil organic matter usually contains 5-10% of N, erosion affects the N cycle. These N are redistributed, either to return back to the atmosphere after being displaced from soil, or enter the groundwater as a form of contamination. In places like the sub-Saharan Africa, where the input of nutrients is scarce, the loss of N is a huge threat to their crop growth. Additionally, the erosion also results in redistribution of P. These P is lost to groundwater in large amounts. Also, erosion can lead to a large release of Si into aquatic environments. This is a combined effect of the increased dissolving of Si from soil, as well as increased soil drainage.

Such loss of N, P and Si could severely hamper the healthy growth of crops. On the environmental pollution front, the excess nutrients entering groundwater and potentially becoming a drinking water source is known as contamination. As for N & P in particular, their increased presence in aquatic ecosystems would lead to accelerated primary production of algae. As for Si, their increased concentration in aquatic ecosystems could lead to bioaccumulation and biomagnification in organisms when they enter the food chain. Notably, since Si is also a heavy metal, their accumulation can become toxic and cause chronic respiratory effects.

That’s all for today! We will be back with another post soon 😄

References:

Govers, G., Van Oost, K. and Wang, Z., 2014. Scratching the Critical Zone: The Global Footprint of Agricultural Soil Erosion. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 10, pp.313-318.

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#10: Bee Vectoring

Instead of using conventional pesticides to kill pests, there are other ways to protect the health of plants. We can harness the power of our natural pollinators, which are bees! These bees can be recruited to help transport beneficial fungi to plants, so that there is less reliance on pesticides. This is known as bee vectoring.

The addition of fungi would enable the plant to be more resistant to a certain type of pest, just like how an antibiotic increases the human body’s resistance to a type of illness. One such fungi advantageous to plants is Clonostrachys rosea, a naturally occurring fungi which is especially good at combating plant diseases like mould growth on plant fruits. As of now, this bee vectoring technique is commercialised and has been practised on blueberry, strawberry, tomato, almonds and sunflower plants. Many other microbes are being tested to see if they can work well against various kind of pests.

To recruit the bees to carry the right fungus, one can place a box of inoculant-dosed powder right at the entrance of the commercially reared beehive. In order to exit, the bees have to pass through the box of power before leaving. When doing so, the bees will coincidentally dip their legs and bodies into the powder, ultimately delivering them straight to the plant (flower) during pollination.

U.S. EPA approves bee-delivered fungicide | Good Fruit Grower

Bee dipping legs and body in powder fungicide

These fungi works well in protecting the plant health, minimising the use of pesticides. Usually, spraying pesticides in traditional farming is over used and non-target specific, where excess pesticides lead to bioaccumulation and biomagnification when it enters the food chain. Comparing it with bee vectoring, the usage of chemical agents is less wasteful and has a potential in completely replacing pesticide use in the future, if results are positive.

References:

Evans Ogden, L., 2020. Sustainable Farming: Can We Use Less Pesticides For More Environmentally Friendly Agriculture. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/the-clean-farming-revolution/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F> [Accessed 17 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | Leave a comment

#9: Smart Fertilisers

Today I came across an interesting article, where I found that fertilisers could be programmed to be smart too!

Since more fertiliser applied would increase crop yield, but the more fertiliser applied, the more gets ends up the the watershed, triggering algae growth.

Hence, to prevent that from happening, there are slow-release fertilisers that has been manufactured and sold for quite some time. These fertiliser formulation acts like a capsule, containing nitrogen, phosphorus and various nutrients. The outer shell can slow the rate of entry of water to the capsule as well as the rate which end products can escape from the capsule. Nutrients are allowed to enter the soil gradually for optimal absorption. Besides that, usage is inexpensive as well as convenient.

Plantacote slow release fertiliser

Schematic diagram showing slow release of fertiliser

More recently, there is the creation of controlled release fertilisers. The shells of the capsules are tuned to only release nutrients at your desired constant rate when the a certain trigger point is hit. Such triggers could be soil temperature, pH or moisture levels.

However, there are some minor drawbacks regarding its usage. In countries with 4 seasons, when the temperature gets too warm or too cold, this might trigger the increased or decreased release of fertiliser into the soil, causing either a root burn or nutrient deficiency respectively. It is also important to note that varying amounts of nutrients is required for optimal plant growth at their different stages. Since the release of fertiliser is fairly constant during constant temperatures, an incorrect amount of nutrients would have been supplied to the plant constantly.

If these fertilisers can be modified to correct its limitations, it is definitely worth it to switch over to smart fertilisers to protect our environment (:

References:

Carbeck, J., 2019. Smarter Fertilizers Can Reduce Environmental Contamination. [online] Scientific American. Available at: <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smarter-fertilizers-can-reduce-environmental-contamination/> [Accessed 14 July 2020].

Posted on by darren and shayna | 9 comments