نبذة مختصرة : Fertiliser nitrogen (N) is essential for maintaining agronomic outputs for our growing population. However, the societal, economic and environmental impacts of excess reactive N from fertiliser is rarely assessed. Here the agronomic, economic and environmental efficacy of three N-fertiliser sources, ammonium-nitrate (AN), urea (U), and inhibited-urea (IU; with NPBT) were evaluated at two grassland sites. Dry matter yield and herbage quality was measured at each silage-cut. Additionally, NH3-N and N2O-N losses were measured and used to calculate the effective N source cost and externality costs, which account for associated environmental and societal impacts. We found no effect of different N sources on yield or herbage quality. However, NH3-N emissions were significantly reduced under the IU treatment, by 48-65%. No significant differences in cumulative N2O emissions were observed. Incorporating externality costs increased fertiliser prices by 1.23-2.36, 6.51-16.4, and 3.17-4.17 times the original cost, for AN, U and IU, respectively, transforming U from the cheapest, to the most expensive of the N sources examined. However, with no apparent yield differences between N-fertiliser sources there is no economic incentive for the land-manager to use the more environmentally and socially acceptable option, unless externality costs are incorporated into fertiliser prices at the point of sale.
Relation: https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/download/bf0697e1fc9798797a12161d7ef45c2ba9b0040b7502014ac16b94ac02a7d90a/5875999/Assessing%20the%20benefits.pdf; https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/download/f878041e11675830988aca44b5627f3221432e915d277dbb4dd6d033f51184a8/3502674/GAGS-2018-0405.R2.final_AC.pdf; https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1519251; Carswell, A. M., Shaw, R., Hunt, J., Sanchez-Rodriguez, A. R., Saunders, K. S., Cotton, J., Hill, P. W., Chadwick, D. R., Jones, D. L. and Misselbrook, T. H. 2018. Assessing the benefits and wider costs of different N fertilisers for grassland agriculture . Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 65 (5), pp. 625 - 639. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1519251
No Comments.