The conjuncture situation resulting from conflict between Russia and Ukraine – countries that supply fertilizers and grain to the entire world – as well as a dollar shortage that complicates imports of products to Argentina, is putting the handbrake on the continued growth that has been taking place. Despite this clean and jerk, more nutrients are extracted from the soil than is contributed.
was the first to collect the details in the lot Fernanda Gonzalez Sanjuan, Executive Manager of Fertilizer Civil Association, who highlighted the low usage Soil analysis as a diagnostic tool In decision making: It is estimated that only 30% of growers do so before defining their nutrition strategy.
González Sanjuan announced that 2022-23 on behalf of the Fertilize Civil Association for this agricultural cycle. Project a market of 5.22 million tonnes, which represents an estimated 8% drop in fertilizer consumption. As he remarked, the main reason for this shortcoming is represented byDue to lack of moisture and change in crop rotation in some relevant areas Those who want to bypass this water limit.
As a result of the war, the increase in the price of grains leveled off and their price ratio with fertilizers also improved in the months before the conflict. “Fertilization today, more than a problem, andThe tool that allows us to control risk”, said Reference, who participated in the Presid Congress held in Rosario last week, “Evidence-Based Crop Nutrition in a Challenging Scenario”, which was also spoken by Juan Orcelet (INTA); and Gabriel Esposito (UNRC), moderated by Fernando García, Consultant and Member of the FCA (UNMdP).
From left to right, Gabriel Esposito, María Fernanda González Sanjuan and John Orcelet in the apracid.
The agronomist pointed out that, as a result of the announcement of the nutrient gap in Argentina—submitted by a relevant group of academics in April this year—the difference between the national average yield and the “achievable” yield in corn is 7.8 tons. per hectare to 10.1 tonnes, respectively. Whereas for soybean, the difference is 3 to 3.5 tonnes.
“Closing that yield gap without compromising soil quality”There will be a need to increase the use of fertilizers”, he warned.
Fertilizer AC has been working for over 6 years in a network of nutrition strategies with field trials in different regions of the country, where crop yields are compared based on soil analysis versus a better treatment with balanced fertilizers, which are usually productive. between does. In addition, a high performance treatment with replacement of macro and micronutrients is presented.
The results of the work allow him to confirm that “in this context of so much uncertainty, it is technologies that bring us closer to certainties”.
i put example 17 corn trials between 2016 and 2021, where an average result of 8.8 tonnes per hectare was achieved, increased to 9.4 tonnes in lots with ‘better’ management., Over that period, the gross margin (grain prices versus fertilizer costs) was $34 per hectare in the grower’s general management versus $72 in better management. This represented an additional $38 of income on the side of incorporating the technology.
With 2022 campaign prices—compared between plantings in the same corn—this additional income is $63 per hectare in favor of better planting, that is, 65% higher than historical profitability. This correction was recorded at the batch level, rWhen we project it at the country level it represents $500 million.
In the case of soybeans (20 trials over 6 years), consistent management of the grower with average fertilizer achieved 3.9 tons per hectare, with a gross margin of $21 per hectare, while with improved treatment it reached 4 tons, Which created a margin. $63 per hectare for better planting, i.e. $45 in favor of good diagnosis and balanced fertilization.
“For 2022 values, this equation improves even more, representing $19 per hectare against $81 per hectare for producer management. This means that in 2022, the best use of fertilizer technology has on average each hectare improved the historical profitability of soybeans by 46%. At the country level, this improvement represents $1,200 million,” he explained.
González Sanjuan pointed out that a balanced application of nutrients “although it does not solve the historical problem, it does bonus track To improve the nutrient balance of the soil.
on a turn, Juan Orcelet, from INTA Concepción del Uruguay, described soil conditions in the province of Entre Ríos, “with major nutrient deficiencies”, of which he mainly highlighted “very low” levels of phosphorus (P), above average With 7 parts per million—and some areas less than 6 ppm—. “There are plots of wheat without P”, in which “fertilization never reaches to meet the requirement of the crop”.
Orcellet also warned that “problems began” in the center-west of Entre Ríos becausepotassium deficiency, “The critical level of potassium is in the range of 160 to 200 ppm and we found that 30% of the batches we surveyed are below this.” This translates into “low competitiveness of Entre Ríos producers, which cost $100 more than other provinces.”
In addition, he noted that more than 90% of the lots in Entre Rios are deficient in zinc, which should be included after nitrogen and phosphorus needs are met.
He elaborated on the importance of including zinc Gabriel Esposito, from the National University of Rio Cuarto, who stressed that the 2022-23 campaign shows “a scenario of water scarcity” that will reinforce the importance of the micronutrient. “Zinc plays a fundamental role as it stimulates growth and helps reduce stress. It can be the main defense in drought conditions because it helps form the root of the plant.”
Esposito assures that zinc is “a nutrient that breaks with the paradigm of ‘why fertilize if I’m going to harvest a little.’ I’m deficient in zinc, so you have to apply it.”
The professor at the University of Rio Cuerto presented economic arguments for the application of zinc, comparing the investment to applying only diammonium phosphate to the application of a “complete” fertilizer that contains zinc: “The crop will have a Additional profit of $98 against 76, 29% more”.
He concluded that “the discussion is not about using the cheapest fertilizer but about applying what is needed.”