Technical
energy and transport costs were prevalent, and the increasing demand for phosphate rock for the production of biofuel was at an all time high - the latter point being perhaps the most influential of all. My current question remains the same as it was back in 2008 - if the fertiliser prices are so vulnerable in respect of market volatility, do we really want to be beholden to products which are subject to such market forces? The economics of the situation are simple -
easily extractable, high quality ores are diminishing rapidly - this fact brings severe economic impacts. Newly located deposits of phosphate rock are generally of a lower quality ore, and are typically more difficult to mine than current stocks - these issues bring additional production costs, and these costs have to be passed on to someone. Though the amenity sector only plays a very
small part in terms of global phosphorus usage, we will most likely be one of the first industries to suffer the effects of Peak Phosphorus, with economics of scale being the prime driver of increasing costs to the end user. Much larger industries, such as agriculture and the ever expanding biofuel sectors, will continue to dominate the global supply chain, leaving the only option for the amenity industry sources with grossly inflated purchase costs. This is not a scenario that we in the amenity
industry are unfamiliar with - I will point to the grossly disproportionate costs of various amenity herbicides, fungicides and other such products, in comparison with their agricultural counterpart products, which are often identical in composition and concentration. It seems apparent to me that the amenity sector is already accustomed to over inflated pricing, courtesy of economics of scale. It would also seem reasonable to suggest
that the immediate future of phosphate fertilisers for amenity use will see significant and continuous price increases - the market will simply demand that this be the case. In the longer term, scarcity of the mineral
will lead to Morocco owning the monopoly on global phosphate rock - something which it already lays claim to, with approximately 80% of the global economically extractable reserves. This fact comes with something of a geopolitical risk however, as a large portion of the phosphate rock which is laid claim to by Morocco is actually located in the Western Sahara - a region that is considered to be an occupied territory; and one where tensions have been fraught for a number of years at that.
The Peak Phosphorus issue simply isn’t going
to go away any time soon - the days of increased costs and scarcity loom large in our
futures. Furthermore, to say that this issue has not been long acknowledged would be incorrect. In his address to the US Congress in 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the issue of phosphorus sustainability: “Therefore, the question of continuous and adequate supplies of phosphate rock directly concerns the national welfare… It is, therefore, high time for the Nation to adopt a national policy for the production and conservation of phosphates for the benefit of this and coming generations.”
I don’t know if this is just my particular mindset, but I find it quite remarkable that an issue identified at US Senate level some seventy-seven years ago, has proven to come to fruition, not only in the USA, but that the threat is repeated in the current global market, yet production continues to grow exponentially with seemingly little focus, or demand from end users on alternative sources. Keeping all of the above information in mind,
I can only ask that we, as an industry, and I include the amenity supply sector in this call, collectively seek alternatives to preserve our future productivity and cost effectiveness. It is a fact that we operate in a demand
driven industry - that is to say that we, as groundsmen, are in a position to shape the supply industry - and, with that, comes a reliance on suppliers to meet end users demands. I believe that there are technologies
available, and alternative practices that can meet our agronomic requirements whilst minimising the environmental and economic burdens of the current practices - it is just a case of finding them. So, what are the options then?
Back to basics management
I read, a lot. I read the magazines, I read the sales brochures, I scour the internet for scientific journals, and I daren’t calculate how much I have spent on books in recent years, but I read and research as much as I can for a reason. In years gone by, I have fallen into the
‘believe everything you hear’ trap. I have seen the latest glossy presentations regarding each and every new product that comes along with a fancy strap line, and I have even used the odd ‘miracle product’ on occasion, but I can honestly say that I have never been blown away by the results - I have been more amazed at the impact these products have on my annual budget than on the quality of my turf. With all due respect to the companies that
work hard to bring these products to market, many of them simply will not replace the basic fundamental requirements of the grasses that
Phosphate mining in the Sahara - not the most stable region in the world!
“
I can honestly say that I have never been blown away by the results - I have been more amazed at the impact these products have on my annual budget than on the quality of my turf
we manage - adequate levels of light, water, air, mineral constituents and soil biota all need to be in place before we even consider spending what are often significant sums of money on a product that simply will not offset a limitation of one of the aforementioned factors. As groundsmen, one of our key duties is to
ensure that the aforementioned factors are in place, but please note, not in excess, as Shelford’s Law of Tolerance alludes to. It is very easy to fall into the trap of becoming reliant on a myriad of products rather than the fundamental principles of turf management -
PC JUNE/JULY 2015 I 129
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156