Should the phosphate fertilizer industry continue to develop further?
Thread Content
After 50 years of development, China’s phosphate fertilizer industry now has the highest production and consumption levels in the world. The rapid growth of this industry is encouraging, but the bottleneck related to phosphate rock resources is gradually becoming apparent, posing a significant challenge to the development of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Although China’s phosphate ore production has now ranked first in the world and is generally sufficient to meet domestic demand, in the past two years, due to the increase in the production of high-concentration phosphate fertilizers, phosphate ores with a phosphorus content of over 30% have become increasingly scarce. In line with the development requirements set by the National Development and Reform Commission for the phosphate fertilizer industry, by the end of the 11th Five-Year Plan period, China’s phosphate fertilizer production is expected to reach 15 million tons, with the total demand for phosphate rocks estimated at 65 million tons. Given such demands, China’s high-quality phosphate ores can only meet the needs until 2013. The Ministry of Land and Resources has listed phosphate mines as one of the 20 mineral types that will not be able to meet the needs of China’s economic development after 2010. In 2006, phosphate mines in Florida, United States, began to degrade; as the grade of the ore dropped to around 15%, the United States shifted from being a exporter of phosphate ore to an importer. Maysan Company was formed through the merger of the American company Cargill Fertilizers and the American company IMC. After its establishment, Maysan shut down production facilities with a capacity of 3 million tons per year for phosphoric acid, 8 million tons per year for sulfuric acid, and 6 million tons per year for DAP, which led to a significant decline in the United States’ production and export capacity for phosphate fertilizers. Will China’s phosphate fertilizer industry repeat the same mistakes as the United States? Last edited by That makes sense on 2008-1-30 14:09]
It’s very likely. I feel that sometimes we shouldn’t solely strive to be number one or number two in anything; in fact, being number one or number two isn’t necessarily a good thing. I think the same is true for phosphate fertilizer production. Processing large quantities of phosphate rock into phosphatic fertilizers with low added value not only wastes resources but also yields far less profit than processing it into phosphates with high added value; even with lower export volumes, it is possible to earn the same amount, or even more, in revenue than from producing phosphatic fertilizers. I think that the production of phosphate fertilizers should be sufficient to meet domestic demand; exports should be minimized. The focus should be placed on phosphate products with high added value, which can also fetch good prices.
Agree with the view from Building 2#: Processing large quantities of phosphate rock into phosphatic fertilizers with low added value not only wastes resources but also yields far less profit than processing it into phosphates with high added value; even with lower export volumes, it is still possible to achieve income equal to or even exceeding that from producing phosphatic fertilizers. I think that the production of phosphate fertilizers should be sufficient to meet domestic demand; exports should be minimized. The focus should be placed on phosphate products with high added value, which can also fetch good prices. Not only are resources wasted, but environmental pollution also remains in the countries where production and processing take place! With the overall strengthening of our country today, we have the conditions to pursue a more refined approach. This post was last edited by phs168 on 2008-6-26 16:39.]
The points made about the 2nd and 3rd floors are both excellent. China’s industry is currently following a path that involves excessive resource consumption, which not only wastes resources but also causes environmental pollution! This is even more true for the fertilizer industry – it’s a laborious effort with little reward
In fact, it’s a waste to use MAP and DAP as fertilizers, with an utilization rate of only around 30%. It also includes nitrogen and potassium. Therefore, I believe that slow-release fertilizers will definitely be a very good direction for the development of fertilizers in the future. The phosphoric acid production process also needs to undergo significant improvements. For example, phosphoric acid produced by the furnace method might receive **more attention**.
Is there any basis for the claim that the utilization rates of MAP and DAP on the 5th floor are around 30%? This post was last edited by phs168 on 2008-6-26 16:39.]
It is worth reflecting on to avoid repeating America’s mistakes.
At present, China mainly relies on light processing of resources; after all, its technical capabilities are not as advanced as those of other countries
Back to floor 7. This is taken from an article from a recent conference on slow-release fertilizers in Linyi; I found those figures to be very useful at the time, so I copied them down. One of the organizers of this conference is Schaeffler. Linyi’s slow-release fertilizers are quite well-known, and in this area, Jindadi is the leader. I am quite interested in this area; I believe that as resources become scarcer and prices rise, slow-release fertilizers will be a focus of future research. This post was last edited by phs168 on 2008-6-26 16:40]
We should develop high-concentration phosphate fertilizers in a moderate manner, combining selection with application, heat and moisture with each other, mineralization with fertilization. Vigorously develop the fine phosphorus chemical industry and pursue a path of deep processing
Replying to the person above: combine harvesting with selection, heat and moisture, mineralization, and fertilization. Vigorously develop the fine phosphorus chemical industry. Those in the phosphate chemicals industry know that this is the way forward, but only a few companies have done this; they mainly focus on acquiring resources and then exporting products with low added value. So I think **policy guidance is needed; it’s not enough to just shout slogans**
Controlled-release fertilizers primarily control nitrogen, rather than phosphorus and potassium. The utilization rates of phosphorus and potassium are relatively high; while controlled-release formulations can have some effect in this regard, the significance is limited. 30% of the data should refer only to the nitrogen utilization rate.
The development of the vast majority of enterprises in our country relies on resources; they are thus resource-based, which has led to phenomena such as the competition for resources. In contrast, most foreign companies rely on technology; they are technology-driven, so they are not highly dependent on resources. I hope that companies in our country will also place importance on technology, develop it, put it into practice, and thereby uphold our dignity.