IPNI Southeast Asia's International Publication Partnership on Oil Palm Nutrition

SUMMARY

IPNI SEAP implemented during 2011 and 2015 a research project on improved nutrition management in oil palm plantation systems in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, with support from K+S Kali GmbH. The project generated a significant amount of valuable information for improved nutrient management. While initial analyses and publication of findings took place, the accumulated information is sufficient for the development of several additional high quality publications. This project will undertake analyses of all available data, and then generate publications based on the findings and results of theses analyses.

CONTEXT

Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) cultivation occurs mainly on infertile soils in the tropics (1), which require addition of inorganic sources of nutrients to support high yields. Research on nutrient uptake in oil palm has been limited to a handful of studies in the 1960s in Nigeria (2) and Malaysia (3, 4), and more recently in the 2000s in Malaysia (5) and Indonesia (6). Much more effort has been invested on empirical studies of yield (of fresh fruit bunches, FFB) response to nutrients applied (for examples: 7, 8, 9, 10). Results of empirical studies have been used to develop mathematical models, usually requiring only input of data of plant tissue nutrient concentrations, for fertilizer recommendations (for examples: 11, 12), and to estimate yields with and without nutrient inputs (for examples: 13, 14).

Rapid expansion of the oil palm industry, especially in the last 2 decades, has brought cultivation to many new areas, particularly in Indonesia, where local conditions may differ from the areas where the research mentioned above had been conducted. In such areas, basic information on nutrient uptake are unavailable, and even the predictive models need re-validation and new models may need to be developed. Plantations are acutely aware of the cost of manuring as it constitutes over 50% of on-farm (i.e. FFB) production cost (15, 16). While it is generally known (at least amongst oil palm agronomists) that palms only recover a fraction of the fertilizers applied, yet little if any effort is invested to measure the efficiency of use of the fertilizers applied in commercial operations, as the main focus of attention is almost invariably cost.

OBJECTIVE

We implement a partnership between K+S Kali GmbH, Gottingen University and IPNI SEAP with the aim to analyze existing oil palm nutrition data held by IPNI SEAP, and develop from this analysis manuscripts for submission to peer reviewed scientific journals.

BACKGROUND

IPNI Southeast Asia Program (SEAP), has been conducting a research project (SEA05), with funding assistance from K+S GmbH, since Oct-2011 in a partner plantation located in Kalimantan, Indonesia. The plantation is located in an area where the major soils are very sandy (ca. 80% sand fraction) and dry periods regularly occur resulting in occasionally severe crop water deficit in some years.

The main objective of the project is to test if increased frequency of nutrient application (i.e. improved, or best management practice, BMP) is more beneficial compared to standard estate practice (SEP) under local conditions. The project ends in Dec-2015 after 4 complete calendar years (i.e. Jan-2012 to Dec-2015) of recording. Full effects of the treatments are expected to be seen in the last 2 calendar years, due to the 2-year period from inflorescence sex determination and maturation of the bunch (17).

The SEP treatment entails application of straight fertilizers: N (urea prill) and K (MOP) each applied twice a year; P (usually RP, but TSP used in project avoid residual effect), Mg (usually dolomite, but kieserite used in project for same reason as TSP), and B (borate) each applied once a year. Total applications per year = 7 rounds. Timing of each application round follows normal estate routine: Jan (Mg), Feb (N round #1), Mar (K round #1), May (P), Jun (B), Jul (N round #2), Aug (K round #2).

The BMP treatment achieves increased frequency of application of each nutrient to 4 times a year by using a blend of urea granular (N), ammophos (N & P) and Kornkali+B (K, Mg & B). Total applications per year = 4 rounds. Applications scheduled in months where rainfall is neither too high nor too low, based on historical rainfall data for the site: thus applications done every Feb, May, Jul & Oct. Blending is done on-site by the plantation project team, using common cement mixers.

In anticipation of better fertilizer recovery efficiency with BMP, each treatment is applied at 2 rates i.e. normal rate computed using a balance-sheet approach based on FFB yield of 21 tons/ha and other assumptions environmental contributions and losses (18) and reduced rate (approx. 20% lower than normal rate).

Thus there are 4 treatments: BMP normal rate, BMP reduced rate, SEP normal rate, SEP reduced rate.

The treatments are compared at normal commercial scale of operation, i.e. whole commercial blocks (each of ca. 25 ha size) are used for each treatment, unlike the usual research scale of using only small plots within a commercial block. Hence there is a higher variability associated with the data compared to research data from conventional experiments at plot scale. However, the whole blocks results are expected to more closely represent achievable practice at commercial scale, as well as being more likely to be convincing to commercial operators.

Each treatment is replicated 3 times. Each replicate consists of 4 adjacent blocks having similar soil type and terrain. All blocks used were planted in 1998, thus the palms were 14 years old (fully mature and in the plateau phase of the yield-age profile) when the project started in Oct-2011.

Application of fertilizers in the field is done manually by the existing fertilizer application team of the plantation. In BMP blocks, the NPKMgB blend is applied by broadcasting onto heaps of pruned palm fronds that have been arranged in a semi-circle around each palm. In SEP blocks, each fertilizer is applied in the same way above, except urea prill and borate are both applied inside the palm circles.

All other field practices in BMP and SEP blocks are the same.

Yield of FFB of each block is recorded by the plantation harvesting team following normal practice i.e. individual harvesters are assigned tasks in each block and they cut mature (i.e. ripe) bunches and bring them out to the side of the block. Harvested bunches are counted before loading into trucks for dispatch to the palm oil mill (located on-site) for weighing. Harvesting is repeated in each block every 7-10 days.

The plantation research team assists with collection of supplementary data in each block, including:

a. Soil samples (19),
b. Growth measurements (20),
c. Plant tissue i.e. fronds (21) and trunk (22) samples for determination of nutrient concentration,
d. Samples of harvested bunches for bunch analysis (BA) to determine content of oil and kernels (23) as well as nutrient concentration,
e. Fertilizer samples (24).

Existing procedures as described in the cited references above were used for growth measurements, plant and fertilizer sampling, and standard BA. In trunk sampling, a new tool was developed to improve efficiency of field work. The standard BA procedure was modified to collect additional components needed for nutrient content analyses.

The weight of all bunches sampled by the research team for BA was reported back to the plantation for inclusion in the respective block records.

Within each BMP and SEP whole block, two conventional experiment size plots (36 palms total per plot with 16-palm recorded core) are embedded – one plot in which fertilizer application is stopped (i.e. unfertilized), the other plot in which fertilizer applications continue according to the treatment assigned to each respective whole block (i.e. fertilized). These plots were located within each block based on the palm fruit type – all blocks planted in 1998 in the plantation suffered from a high level (ca. 50%) of contamination of dura palms Oil palm commercial planting material is the D (dura) x P (pisifera) hybrid which produces T (tenera) palms which have fruits with a thick oil-bearing mesocarp. Palms derived from poorly produced or illegitimate seeds can include a disproportionately high number of dura palms which have fruits with large nuts and much less oil-bearing mesocarp, hence giving a lower oil yield., so the plots were placed in spots in each block where at least 12 of the 16 core palms were tenera palms.

Each unfertilized plot is surrounded by a trench (1 m deep x 30 cm wide). During fertilizer application in the whole block, each unfertilized plot is cordoned off with a string and a member of the research team is present to ensure that workers do not apply any fertilizers inside the plot.

Yield in the embedded fertilized (+Fert) and unfertilized (-Fert) plots is recorded on an individual palm basis by the research team. After weighing by the research team, the harvested bunches are collected by the plantation team and included with the rest of the harvested bunches of the same block for counting and subsequent weighing of the whole block yield in the way described earlier. Bunches are sampled from each embedded plot for BA – the weight of these sampled bunches is reported to the plantation for inclusion in the whole block record.

All other supplementary data recorded in whole blocks as described earlier are also recorded in each embedded plot.

REFERENCES

1. Mutert E (1999) Suitability of soils for oil palm in Southeast Asia. Better Crops International 13(1):36-38.

2. Tinker PBH and Smilde KW (1963) Dry matter production and nutrient content of plantation oil palms in Nigeria. II. Nutrient content. Plant and Soil 19:350-363.
3. Ng SK and Thamboo S (1967) Nutrient contents of oil palms in Malaya. I. Nutrients required for reproduction: Fruit bunches and male inflorescences. The Malaysian Agricultural Journal 46:3-45.
4. Ng SK, Thamboo S and de Souza P (1968) Nutrient contents of oil palms in Malaya. II. Nutrients in vegetative tissues. The Malaysian Agricultural Journal 46:332-391.
5. Tarmizi AM and Tayeb MD (2006) Nutrient demands of tenera oil palm planted on inland soils of Malaysia. Journal of Oil Palm Research 18(1):204-209.
6. Prabowo NE, Foster HL and Silalahi AJ (2006) Recycling oil palm bunch nutrients. Presented at International Oil Palm Conference, Bali, Indonesia.
7. Chan KW (1982a) Nitrogen requirements of oil palms in Malaysia: Fifty years of experiments conducted by Guthries. In: The oil palm in agriculture in the eighties Vol II (Pushparajah & Chew, eds), Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur, pp 119-153.
8. Chan KW (1982b) Phosphorus requirements of oil palms in Malaysia: Fifty years of experimental results. In: Phosphorus and potassium in the tropics (Pushparajah & Hamid, eds), Malaysian Soil Science Society, pp. 395-423.
9. Chan KW (1982) Potassium requirements of oil palms in Malaysia: Fifty years of experimental results. In: Phosphorus and potassium in the tropics (Pushparajah & Hamid, eds), Malaysian Soil Science Society, pp. 323-348.
10. Chan KW and Rajaratnam JA (1977) Magnesium requirements of oil palms in Malaysia: 45 years of experimental results. In: International developments in oil palm (Earp & Newall, eds), Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 371-388.
11. Caliman JP, Daniel C and Talliez B (1994) Oil palm mineral nutrition. Plantations, Recherche, Developpement 1:36-54.
12. Tarmizi AM, Hamdan AB and Tayeb MD (1999) Development and validation of PORIM fertilizer recommendation in Malaysian oil palm. In: Proc 1999 PIPOC – Emerging technologies and opportunities in the new millennium (Ariffin, Chan & Sharifah, eds), Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 203-217.
13. Foster HL, Tayeb MD and Zin ZZ (1985a) Oil palm yields in the absence of N & K fertilizers in different environments in Peninsular Malaysia. PORIM Occasional Paper 15, Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 17pp.
14. Foster HL, Chang KC, Tayeb MD, Tarmizi AM and Zin ZZ (1985b) Oil palm yield responses to N & K fertilizers in different environments in Peninsular Malaysia. PORIM Occasional Paper 16, Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 23pp.
15. Susanto A, Priwiratama H and Dja’far (2013) Program replanting dipercepat pada kebun kelapa sawit terserang Ganoderma (In Indonesian). Jurnal Penilitian Kelapa Sawit 21(1):10-19.
16. Veloo, R, Paimin S and Shaharuddin MR (2013) Rising cost of plantation business. The Planter 89(1050):661-672
17. Breure K (2003) The search for yield in oil palm: Basic principles. In: Oil palm: Management for large and sustainable yields (Fairhurst & Härdter, eds), Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI), Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and International Potash Institute (IPI), pp. 59-98.
18. Donough CR, Cahyo A, Oberthür T, Ruli W, Gerendas J and Gatot AR (2014) Improving nutrient management of oil palms on sanday soils in Kalimantan using the 4R concept of IPNI. Presented at International Oil Palm Conference 2014, Bali, Indonesia.
19. Pauli N, Donough C, Oberthür T, Cock J, Verdooren R, Rahmadsyah, Abdurrohim G, Indrasuara K, Lubis A, Dolong T and Pasuquin JM (2014) Changes in soil quality indicators under oil palm plantations following application of ‘best management practices’ in a four-year field trial. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 195:98-111.
20. Anonymous (2003) Appendix 6: Measurement of vegetative and generative growth in mature palms. In: Oil palm: Management for large and sustainable yields (Fairhurst & Härdter, eds), Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI), Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and International Potash Institute (IPI), pp. 345-350.
21. Anonymous (2003) Appendix 3: Leaf (frond) sampling. In: Oil palm: Management for large and sustainable yields (Fairhurst & Härdter, eds), Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI), Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and International Potash Institute (IPI), pp. 340-341.
22. Prabowo NE and Foster HL (2006) Nutrient uptake and fertilizer recovery efficiency. Presented at Workshop on Oil Palm Nutrient Needs, Singapore.
23. Oberthür T, Donough CR, Indrasuara K, Dolong T and G Abdurrohim (2012) Successful intensification of oil palm plantations with best management practices: Impacts on fresh fruit bunch and oil yield. In: Proc Int’l Planters’ Conf 2012 (Pushparajah, ed), Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur, pp 67-102.
24. Anonymous (2003) Appendix 8: Sampling fertilizer materials for analysis. In: Oil palm: Management for large and sustainable yields (Fairhurst & Härdter, eds), Potash & Phosphate Institute (PPI), Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada (PPIC) and International Potash Institute (IPI), pp. 351-352.