Fertilizer Management and Productivity of Oil Palm in Malaysia

1
GOH, K.J., 1NG, P.H.C. AND 2LEE, C.T.
1
Advanced Agroecological Research Sdn. Bhd.,

Locked Bag 212, Sg. Buloh, P.O.,

47000 Sg. Buloh, Selangor

2
FELDA Agricultural Services Sdn. Bhd.,

Tingkat 7, Balai FELDA, Jalan Gurney Satu,

54000 Kuala Lumpur

ABSTRACT

Amongst the commercial vegetable oil crops in the world, the oil palm agro-

ecosystem produces the largest quantity of edible oil per unit area despite being

largely grown on highly weathered tropical soils with low fertility. It is therefore

unsurprising that fertilizers and balanced palm nutrition have been pivotal to the well-

being of oil palm and the profitability and sustainability of the oil palm industry. The

fertilizer management system of oil palm has been established and continuously

improved since its large scale plantings in the 1970s. It has served the industry well as

evidenced by its sustainability and capacity to weather the regular economic crises.

However, oil palms have been expanded to degraded soils, marginal environment and

climate. We are now constantly reminded of the stagnating yields and declining

1
competitiveness of the oil palm industry in Malaysia. We need to tap into all resources

available and maintain our ingenuity to develop scientifically sound and properly

tested practical practices i.e. science-based solutions to overcome difficult challenges

and to stay ahead of our competitors.

This paper discusses the various strategies and approaches to ensure effective and

efficient fertilizer management in the plantations, and the challenges and future trend

in fertilizer management system for sustainable oil palm. We wish to stress that there

are no quick fixes for the current economic uncertainty of farming, only good

agronomy and management to alleviate its impact on productivity and profitability,

and the same is true for the oil palm industry. During this testing time, informed or

evidence-based decision is paramount in minimizing agricultural risk because science

usually triumphs common sense and personal perception when it really matters.

Keywords: Fertilizer management, fertilizer use efficiency, effective fertilizers, oil

palm productivity

INTRODUCTION

In 1992, Chew et al. (1994a) surmised that “The growth of the oil palm industry in

Malaysia in the last three decades must be one of the great success stories in

agriculture”. One and a half decade later, it has not only expanded worldwide and

increased its area by 104 % but also stamped its success by being the most productive

vegetable oil crop, consistent economic returns (export earnings of RM65.2 billion in

2
2008), large positive impact on local and national social development and adopting

environmentally sound and scientifically based practices. The latter has always been

the central tenet of our recommended agro-management inputs. We should also note

that the above essential contributions of the oil palm industry to our society are also

fundamental criteria or guidelines embraced by most definitions of agricultural

sustainability e.g. FAO/IBSRAM (Symth and Dumanski, 1993).

The oil palm is quite unlike the other oil crops and probably most agricultural crops in

the world, which are mainly grown for domestic markets (Goh and Teo, 2008). The

produce from oil palm, on the other hand, is mainly exported and in fact, is the largest

traded vegetable oil globally. For example, the global productions of palm oil and

soybean oil in 2006 were similar but the global trade of palm oil was nearly three

times that of soybean (Figure 1). Today, palm oil is the world largest supplier of

vegetable oils and fats, accounting for about 37% of the world’s market share. It is the

cheapest edible oils (Lam et al., 2009) being sold at a huge discount against soybean

oil and thus, has been providing affordable edible oils to the masses worldwide. It is

probably one of the few if not the only edible oil that can meet the demand generated

by the increasing per capita consumption of oils and fats by developing economies

and the accelerating world population without excessive use of additional cropland or

logged over (degraded) forests (Table 1). In fact, the expansion of oil palm plantings

is about 0.5 million ha/yr which is only 4% of total forest loss of approximately 14

million ha/yr worldwide.

3
These successes have attracted much attention and put the oil palm industry under

close scrutiny of international environmental and social non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) and agencies, and lately the European Union. Numerous

campaigns against the industry have been launched by them which can create negative

perception of the industry to the consumers if left unchallenged and unfair trade

“barrier” being imposed on us. This is despite the fact that the major oil palm

producers have always been responsible planters and subscribed to the concept of

sustainability (Chew et al., 1994b) even before the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm

Oil (RSPO) was conceived and formed. Nevertheless, many producers will be

meeting or have met the principles and criteria of sustainable palm oil as defined by

RSPO. Fertilizer management features prominently in Principle 4 of this initiative and

certification.

This paper will attempt to relate fertilizer management and productivity of oil palm in

the context of current and near future challenges. It is basically an update of our

earlier papers on similar subject in particular Chew et al. (1994a) and Kee and Goh

(2006). We shall also discuss the future trends and needs in fertilizer management of

oil palm that may enable us to stay ahead of our competitors and maintain

sustainability.

PRODUCTIVITY OF OIL PALM

The rapid growth and high productivity of oil palm have been demonstrated in trials

and well managed plantations. Plant breeding trials and physiological computation

4
showed that the potential yield of the oil palm is about 17 t oil/ha (Corley, 1985)

whereas over 12 t oil/ha have been reported in small scale breeding trials (Mohd. Din

et al., 2005) and 6.8 t oil/ha in large commercial plantings (Goh et al., 2002) using

current DxP materials (Table 2). On average, the clonal planting materials have been

shown to have additional 10-15 % oil compared with DxP materials (Soh et al., 2003).

Similar results were obtained for fresh fruit bunches (FFB) where consistent high

yields in excess of 30 t/ha/yr were reported in numerous trials set-up in the 1970s and

1980s across a wide range of soils and climatic regions (Table 3). Later experiments

gave even higher yields for the best treatment plots with many exceeding 35 t/ha/yr

(Table 3). These results were reproduced on a commercial scale where Goh et al.

(1994) using 1960s to 1980s palms illustrated that the more recent plantings not only

attained higher yields but also reached peak yields at a younger age than older

plantings e.g. 1960s and early 1970s plantings (Figure 2).

The high yields quoted above were mainly taken over a short duration or a point in

time, and usually during the peak yielding period. Goh et al. (1994) and Chew and

Goh (2003) clearly showed that the oil palm exhibits a rapid increase in growth before

reaching a plateau at around 10 to 12 years after planting (Figure 3). FFB yields

followed suit in tandem with growth but attaining peak yield earlier at between 8 and

10 years after planting (Figure 3). Unlike growth, FFB yields in commercial fields

will decline usually 16 years after planting because of increasing difficulty in

harvesting and the need to maintain sub-optimal number of fronds for better

harvesting efficiency (Goh and Teo, 1997). Thus, the average yield over the

5
productive life cycle of oil palm in each zone (environment) was lower than its peak

yield, ranging from 17 t/ha/yr to 29 t/ha/yr (Table 4). This contention is further

confirmed by the analysis of 11 private companies with substantial ownership of oil

palm plantations covering 1.15 million ha in 2006 accounting for nearly 27.6 % of the

total area under oil palm in Malaysia. The results clearly showed that the two best

yields were achieved by plantations with high percentage of oil palms in the prime

age group or with well distributed palm age whereas the poorest yields were obtained

by the four plantations with high percentages of palms due for replanting (Figure 4).

Apart from this, every palm in the plantations should be productive (Tam, 1973) for

best yield.

Lately, the oil palm has been expanded to more diverse soil types with increasing

areas of highly degraded soils, difficult landscape and steep terrain, and marginal

climate. This foray partially contributes to the dismal yield improvement since 1980s

on a national scale, which is also well illustrated in Figure 4 where companies with

larger areas of oil palm have lower mean FFB yields. The use of marginal or

unsuitable land for oil palm has imposed additional challenges to the production

system, which necessitates the modification of the environment in order to provide the

best growing conditions i.e. minimize stresses for high productivity. However, it

usually puts unnecessary strains on the system through higher production costs, labour

requirements and expertise. Thus, one of the most fundamental pre-requisites in oil

palm productivity must surely be careful selection of the site to ensure that the crop is

planted on land well suited for it (Kee and Goh, 2006). This will pre-empt much of

the current difficulties associated with poor yields, low profitability and sustainability

6
(Kee and Goh, 2006). In fact, we echoed the call by Teo (2001) and Pushparajah

(2002) that further expansion of oil palm areas into marginal or unsuitable land must

be strongly discouraged as better alternatives are usually available to enhance

profitability and moreover, fertilization cannot overcome all production constraints.

We have also been constantly reminded of the increasing competition from other oil

seeds where better yield increments have been achieved between 1970s and 2000s

compared with palm oil in Malaysia as shown in Table 5 (Chew and Goh, 2003).

Furthermore, the competitiveness of the Malaysian oil palm industry in terms of

production costs has also been eroding compared with other oil palm producers (Table

6). Goh et al. (2002) have shown that the best remedy or perhaps the most effective

solution is to increase productivity per unit area.

Many factors contribute to this high productivity of oil palm, inter alia, improved

planting materials, agronomy and management. Davidson (1993) in tracing the

progress of palm oil yield in Pamol, Kluang, which was elevated from 1.3 t/ha/yr in

1951 to 5.43 t/ha/yr in 1991 excluding negative factors, listed seven major practices

that were responsible for this yield improvement. Amongst them, fertilization was the

most important contributor accounting for 29% of the yield increment (Table 7). This

was supported by numerous fertilizer response trials conducted in Malaysia, which

showed large FFB responses to balanced nutrition (Table 3). Hence, fertilizers not

only have the greatest impact on productivity but also commonly constitute the

highest operational cost in well run plantations in Malaysia. It plays a pivotal role in

the sustainability and profitability of oil palm particularly in recent months when

7
prices of commodities are uncertain and economics of farming has become the

dominant issue.

FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT

The rapid growth and high productivity of oil palm as elucidated above come with a

cost: the need for high, balanced nutrition that is specific to each site or environment

throughout the life cycle of the palms except for the short period before replanting

when fertilizer application might be withdrawn. The latter practice is mainly for

economic reason. The good responses of oil palm to fertilizer inputs were mainly

attributed to the low fertility of highly weathered tropical soils and/or moisture stress

(Goh, 2005). The responses can range from less than 10% to over 200% (Table 3).

For proper interpretation of fertilizer responses of oil palm, apart from adequate

replications and randomisation, at least two other features must be present in the

experiments:

a) an absolute control where the tested fertilizers are not applied

b) duration of trial is sufficient to negate all residual effects and avoid premature

conclusion

Xavier et al. (2008) gave a succinct account of the clear FFB yield responses to

fertilizer inputs on relatively fertile coastal soils based on the availability of the above

features in their experiments (Figure 5). In contrast to this, it was most unfortunate

that recently there were numerous claims on the effectiveness of various new agro-

8
management practices and fertilizers for oil palm plantations. Many of them were

inconclusive due to the lack of above features in the “experiments” amongst other

weaknesses. Nevertheless, some proponents of such claims have implemented them to

the disservice of the industry and such unsound and unscientific practices must be

abhorred if the oil palm industry in Malaysia is to remain competitive and sustainable.

Balanced nutrition is also of utmost importance to elicit a response to fertilizer inputs.

As shown in Table 8, the maximum FFB yield was obtained in the presence of both N

and K. In the absence of N, increasing K rates depressed oil palm yield but had no

effect on growth. On the other hand, without K input, increasing N rates had little

effect on FFB yields although vegetative growth was significantly improved.

Moreover, there are strong indications that where palms were better grown due to

proper fertilizer management, the annual yield fluctuations may be reduced

substantially (Table 9). This will not only ease the management of oil palms and mills

but also the marketing of palm oil.

Therefore, the main objectives of a fertilizer management system are (Goh et al.,

1999a):

a) To supply each palm with adequate nutrients in balanced proportion to ensure

healthy vegetative growth and optimum economic FFB yields.

b) To apply the fertilizers in the prescribed manner over the areas of the estate that

are likely to result in the most efficient nutrient uptake.

9
c) To integrate the use of mineral fertilizers and palm residues.

d) To minimize negative environmental impacts related to over-fertilization, land

degradation, and pollution from heavy metals such as cobalt and eutrophism by P

application.

These multi-objectives demand that the fertilizer management system for oil palm

entails more than just the computation of optimum fertilizer rates although it will

always be the first key towards an effective fertilizer programme. The other major

components in the system includes correct timing, placement and methods of fertilizer

application and right source of fertilizer, recommendation of optimum growing

conditions for the oil palm to maximize nutrient uptake, and monitoring of growth,

nutrition and yield targets.

Therefore, the fertilizer recommendations seen on the estates, which often appear to

be taken for granted, require a good understanding of the general principles governing

the mineral nutrition of oil palm (Corley and Tinker, 2003; Goh and Hardter, 2003)

and methods to maximize fertilizer use efficiency (Goh et al., 1999a; Goh et al,,

2003). It is not the aim of this paper to provide another comprehensive account of

the recommended fertilizer management system for oil palm as recently there has

been a spate of papers on this very subject matter and the system well described and

laid down. Interested readers should refer to Corley and Tinker, 2003, Tang et al.,

1999, Goh, 2005, Kee and Goh, 2006 and Goh and Teo, 2008, just to name a few. But

for completeness, the key practices in the recommended fertilizer management system

are described in brevity.

10
The nutrient balance method in drawing up the fertilizer rates for oil palm on specific

site is now well established (Kee et al., 1994; Corley and Tinker, 2003; Goh, 2005)

and need not be elaborated here. Suffice to say that the method requires the following

data or information (Goh and Teo, 2008):

a) Data to compute the nutrient balance including expected growth and yield as

described earlier.

b) Site yield potential and actual yield

c) Expected response to manuring

d) Assessments of palm sizes, vigour, deficiency symptoms etc

e) Soil data including analysis, soil types, terrain etc

f) Leaf analysis and vegetative growth measurements

g) Factors affecting fertiliser efficiency

h) Palm age, materials, density etc

i) Climatic conditions

j) Field conditions, eg. weeds, drainage, mulching etc

k) Other relevant data, e.g. planting dates, replanting dates, technique of planting

etc.

l) Past fertiliser history including fertiliser rates, sources, timing etc

The list of information may appear daunting but with electronic equipment, good

database and decision support system, the task of collecting and collating the data is

11
much simpler than thought (Goh and Teo, 2008). It also enables one to significantly

utilise the diverse arrays of data for:

a) formulation of fertiliser recommendations

b) judgement of the performances of the palms and estates

c) early recognition of problems and problematic areas

d) building up a knowledge of the fields

which are essential for optimum management, high productivity and lower costs of

production, and lately, for RSPO certification.

Also, this comprehensive Integrated Agronomic Management (IAM) system as

described by Kee and Goh (2006) has been further combined with database, global

positioning system (GPS), geographical information system (GIS), artificial

intelligience and 3-D structural-functional model to develop an agronomic

information management system (AIMs). Although AIMs is a practical system to

provide site specific fertilizer recommendation, much work is still needed to fully

validate and perfect it.

Getting the fertilizer rates right is only the first step and one of the key factors in the

fertilizer management system. We need to ensure that the fertilizers are appropriately

applied according to recommended practices for maximum uptake and utilization by

the palms i.e. maximizes fertilizer use efficiency. Therefore, it is essential that the

estate management understand and appreciate the major factors controlling it such as

timing, frequency, sources, placement and method of fertilizer application even

12
though their impact on FFB yields are usually far lower than optimal fertilizer rates as

deliberated below. Since these agro-management practices affect the fertilizer use

efficiency, they also influence the production cost and competitiveness of the oil palm

industry in Malaysia.

After the optimal fertilizer rates, correct source of fertilizer for the site is probably the

next factor with the largest impact on FFB yield responses particularly for N and P.

Zin et al. (1990) showed that apart from coastal soils, the use of urea would result in

lower FFB yields compared with ammonium sulphate treated plots. This was usually

attributed to unpredictable N loss via urea volatilization. A re-computation of the data

from the above study where only positive FFB yield responses to both urea and

ammonium sulphate were considered showed that 14 to 45 % of these responses could

be explained by the use of correct N source i.e. ammonium sulphate based on %

standardised difference (Table 10). The other common N sources for oil palm i.e.

ammonium nitrate and ammonium chloride gave similar FFB yield responses as

ammonium sulphate (Lim et al., 1982) if fertilizer quality is not an issue.

For fully mature palms, applying N fertilizer outside or within the palm circle gave

similar yields. On Briah series soils where there was a 59 % yield response, the

different fertilizer placements explained only 8 % of the above yield response (Table

10). Closer results were seen in Durian series soils where yield response to N input

was smaller at 24% (results were not presented). Increasing the frequency of fertilizer

applications did not result in marked enhancement of FFB yields as expected or

assumed by many planters despite the relatively large yield response on Munchong

13
series soils (Table 10). In fact, both placement and frequency of fertilizer applications

accounted for less than 20% of the total FFB yield responses; the rest was due to

fertilizer rates.

Various methods of fertilizer application have been investigated and again, they

differed little at high fertilizer regime (Table 10). However, at lower fertilizer rates,

aerial and manual applications were inferior to mechanised application by 13 and 8 %,

respectively. This implies that when root contacts with fertilizer are limited, then

increasing the concentrations of nutrient will enhance uptake rate provided they are at

non toxic level to the roots. A good discourse on this complex subject can be found in

Tinker and Leigh (1985) and Tinker and Nye (2000).

Apart from wrong choice of fertilizer for the site, the above results corresponded well

with the relatively low nutrient losses of applied fertilizers in well managed oil palm

plantations on undulating to rolling terrain. Other methods to minimize nutrient losses

on hilly terrain are available as propounded by Ng and Goh (2008).

Lately, sub-soiling the fertilizers especially N and K has been advocated by some

plantation companies for various reasons. A close examination of available

experimental data and commercial data clearly showed the deficiency of this method

of fertilizer applications (Table 11) as expounded by Ng and Goh (2008). Using trial

data (Manjit et al., 2002) that met the criteria for proper interpretation as discussed

earlier, we found that 27% of the FFB yield response was accounted for by the

methods of application. Again, higher fertilizer rate was needed to get a full FFB

14
response. These negative results are well supported or in agreement with current

scientific principles of plant nutrient uptake as follows:

a) The amount of roots required for nutrient uptake is proportional to demand or

productivity of the plant (Figure 6)

b) Nutrient uptake rate increases proportionally to soil nutrient concentration up to

the maximum uptake rate, Vmax (Tinker and Leigh, 1985)

c) Roots are sensitive to excessive soil nutrient concentration (Ng and Goh, 2004)

and therefore, any concentrated patches of nutrients must leach out sufficiently

before new roots could grow profusely and absorb nutrients (Figure 7)

Also, we need to apply fertilizer at a rate where the soils can hold them for a sufficient

period to allow plant roots to absorb most of the nutrients before the next application.

Thus, sub-soiling method should be restricted to areas where management could not

control or reduce fertilizer losses e.g. high run-off losses, lack of area to broadcast

fertilizers e.g. very narrow terraces, and insufficient satisfactory to fair months to

apply fertilizers.

For young palms, the strategy would be to build up the soil nutrient status at the

young stage. The AA+ MulchTM system and FELDA mulch (Figure 8) could be

adopted for newly planted palms to reduce the fertilizer application to one round for

the first year of planting. In an area with low annual rainfall of approximately 1500

mm per year, initial growth of palms planted with AA+MulchTM system was superior

15
to those without AA+MulchTM despite both having the same fertilizer regime (Figure

9). The use of controlled release fertilizers is not necessary with the AA+ MulchTM

system. This was mainly attributed to the drought causing inferior results of the

control treatment (without AA+MulchTM) even at the highest fertilizer rate tested

suggesting that in areas with very low rainfall or with high moisture deficits, the

AA+MulchTM system was able to conserve water from surface evaporation. Similar

positive results were obtained with FELDA Mulch for one year old palms (Table 12)

with subsequent earlier fruiting. The use of controlled release fertilizers is

unnecessary with FELDA Mulch. Currently, FELDA has adopted the FELDA Mulch

system as a standard practice in large scale replanting of oil palm.

Notably, in the fertilizer management system of oil palm, organic fertilizer in the form

of pruned fronds has always been naturally added to the soils. In fact, nutrient release

from pruned fronds is rapid and can supply as much as 14% and 24% of the annual N

and K requirements of a high yielding mature oil palm field (Kee and Chew, 2006).

Apart from this, application of empty fruit bunches (EFB) at 37.5 t/ha/yr would

supply all the K and half of the N requirements of oil palm (Figure 10). Also, the

impact of EFB on FFB yields was larger on shallow lateritic soils with yield

increments ranging from 39 to 53% compared to those on deep Ultisols at between 17

and 29%. Similarly, the other by-products from the palm oil mill such as decanter

cake and palm oil mill effluent are excellent sources of organic fertilizers for the oil

palm (Lim et al., 1999) and every effort should be made to utilize them fully in view

of the current high fertilizer prices, and large energy cost and greenhouse gas

emission during the production of most mineral fertilizers especially N.

16
The estate management also has a vital role to play in the fertilizer management of oil

palm and its productivity. The details are provided by Goh et al. (1999) and Kee and

Goh (2006). Briefly, one of the most critical roles of the estate management is to

maintain reasonably uniform manuring block size and accurate manuring block

records as described earlier. The manuring block should be relatively uniform in terms

of palm age, soils and terrain. For practicality, the block boundaries should be

delineated by roads. Thus, as rule of thumb, each manuring block should be

approximately 40 ha and at least 80 % uniform. Where there are small distinct areas

which require specific treatments e.g. lateritic soils, they should be clearly demarcated

and attended to immediately (Kok et al., 2000). The area of the manuring block must

be accurately measured because all productivity figures and indicators of estate

performance are commonly expressed on per unit area basis. These simple procedures

are essential to enable the agronomist to provide precise and site-specific

recommendations and the estate management to implement them for best results.

The most precise fertilizer recommendations are of little value if they cannot be

timely executed and implemented accordingly. Delays in fertilizer delivery, lack of

storage or poor storage facility and shortage of workers are common factors causing

severe disruption to the manuring programme with consequent poor results (Kee et

al., 2005). Thus, it is of utmost importance that the estate management and the

headquarter ensure that the ordering of fertilizers are promptly carried out, at least

three months ahead of delivery to the estates. Fertilizers should always be purchased

from consistent, tested, reliable and reputable suppliers of quality fertilizers.

17
The timing of delivery rate depends on many factors including storage space, estate

location and logistics. If possible, “just in time” delivery schedule should be always

advocated. Upon delivery, the tonnage and number of bags of fertilizer must be tallied

against the purchase order. The use of the estate or mill weighbridge is an absolute

must as short weight is fairly common.

There must be a standard operating procedure for testing the quality of fertilizer.

SIRIM standards, MS417, part 1, 1994, with a proper sampling tool may be used to

sample the fertilizers of each consignment. The sampled fertilizers must be packed

appropriately and sent to a reliable laboratory for analysis immediately. The physical

properties of the fertilizer should be visually checked at the estate and photographs

taken for evidence, if necessary. With the current high fertilizer prices and better

fertilizer manufacturing technology, it might be appropriate to impose a higher

standard for fertilizer quality than the current SIRIM standards in particular for

compound fertilizer and fertilizer mixture. For example, the current 8% variation

allowed in the nutrient composition can be capitalized by the suppliers due to its high

monetary value.

The fertilizer store must be well ventilated, dry and rainproof (Kee et al., 2005). Upon

delivery, the fertilizers should be neatly stacked for easy identification, stock count

and efficient reloading and transport to the field for application. This will minimize

losses, wastage and cross contamination.

18
The key procedures in planning and organising fertilizer application in the fields have

been outlined by Goh et al. (1999), Kee et al. (2005) and Goh and Teo (2008). These

practical steps have been re-written as standard policy by many plantation companies

and interested readers should refer to the above publications for detail.

Good supervision is tantamount and the key to successful implementation of the

fertiliser recommendations, be it in manual or mechanised application (Goh et al.,

1999). The supervisory staff including the managers must walk through the fields

particularly in the middle of the field, ravine areas and hilltop areas where mistakes

are most common. The importance of close supervision during fertiliser application is

underscored in the example provided in Table 13. FFB yield in block 3, which was the

nearest to roadside (Row 1 to Row 5), was 327 % above that in block 1 which was

the furthest (Row 11 to Row 15) from the road and in the middle of the field. If

fertilizers had been evenly applied to the whole field, overall FFB yield would have

increased by 52 %.

Kee et al. (2005) stressed that apart from palms missed out during manuring or not

receiving the prescribed rate in full, the other common mistakes in application include

(Goh et al., 1999):

a) Application of fertiliser in heaps or narrow bands and application of lumpy

fertiliser.

b) Application of fertiliser in wrong areas, e.g. GML in palm circles, N fertiliser

in waterlogged spots or on terrace edges.

19
 c) Fertiliser applied too far or too near young palms.

d) Applying fertilisers over the lower fronds in young palms which can result in

fertiliser scorch.

e) Fertiliser applied without using calibrated measures.

f) Applying many fertilisers at the same time to catch up with the manuring

rounds. This can cause toxicity, imbalance and/or immobilisation of some

nutrients, e.g. N and B.

g) Applying fertiliser when the field is full of weeds.

This list is by no means exhaustive. There is just no substitute for good and

meticulous supervision of field work in the estate.

Feedback is one of the keys to successful implementation of the fertiliser

recommendations and it should be part and parcel of the company’s culture. This is

because the responsibility of fertiliser management does not lie with the agronomist

alone but ultimately with all concerned (Goh et al., 1999). Some of the essential

feedbacks provided by the latter authors are reproduced below:

a) Wash-out after fertiliser application, which can happen in tropical countries.

Additional fertiliser may be necessary.

b) Delay in fertiliser delivery of more than 2 months. Readjustment of fertiliser

schedule and rates should be done.

20
c) Non-availability of fertiliser in the market or a substantial change in fertiliser

price. Another source of fertiliser, fertiliser rate and method of application may

be advised.

d) Areas with nutrient deficiency symptoms or unusual appearances of the palms.

Corrective manurings or other appropiate measures such as drainage may be

recommended.

e) Changes to field practices, planting dates and replanting dates. Modification to

the fertiliser recommendations is usually necessary.

f) Regular reporting on palm growth and yields in problem areas. Specific

corrective measures may be needed to alleviate or overcome the most limiting

factor first.

SOME CURRENT CHALLENGES AND FUTURE TREND

The fertilizer management system described thus far can be regarded as traditional

method commonly adopted in the oil palm plantations. It has served the industry well

as evidenced by the high FFB yields, respectable returns to manuring and

sustainability. But, the industry now faces many new challenges and some of them are

briefly discussed below.

Labour requirements

21
The current plantation management system is labour intensive and many of them are

deployed in manuring work. Switching to mechanical spreading of fertilizers will

immediately result in tremendous saving in labour requirements but the following

principal points should be noted (Chew et al., 1994a):

a) Application efficiency increases when roots system of oil palms are

adequately developed and spread out

b) Avoid application over eroded and compacted areas traversed by in-field

vehicles which suffer severe run-off

c) Limited to areas of suitable terrain and soil types which can take vehicle load

Apart from the above points to consider, there is usually a lack of control in actual

fertilizer application rate with mechanical spreader since the speed of tractor is

variable and the actual traverse path of the tractor is determined by the driver. Both

difficulties can probably be overcome with electronic controller and GPS.

Other responses to the high labour requirements for manuring are to reduce the

frequency of application to once a year e.g. the use of FELDA or AA+ MulchTM for

mature palms (Figure 11), effective sources of fertilizers, improving nutrient holding

capacity of the soils and better nutrient uptake by roots. Recent results showed that

applying fertilizers under the FELDA Mulch resulted in better leaf and rachis P and K

concentrations of oil palms compared with broadcasting in a high rainfall region in

Sarawak (Figure 12). This system reduces surface run-off and erosion of applied

nutrients and avoids excessive concentration of applied nutrients at a spot. Therefore,

22
it allows the application of fertilizers during wet weather. This method also provides

better flexibility in the manuring programme and utilization of labour. However, the

long-term economic returns from this system are still being evaluated.

Fertilizer prices

The volatile fertilizer prices in the past two years have been described as a “perfect

storm” in IFDC report, Volume 33(4), December 2008. According to the report,

numerous factors converged simultaneous to cause fertilizer prices to soar and then

suddenly collapse. The latter was attributed to “demand destruction” when farmers

were unable or unwilling to pay two to three times the prices of early 2007. The report

further stated that the situation worsened with the collapse of the global credit market,

a trade recession and slowdown in world economic growth. This depressing scenario

of the fertilizer market for at least the next two years is nothing new as it has

happened on a number of occasions in the past although the factors causing them

might vary.

The first reaction of most farmers and planters to high fertilizer prices is generally to

withdraw fertilizer inputs for better cash flow. However, as advised by Dr. Ng Siew

Kee in the 1970s, we should look inwards first and examine various scopes to

improve fertilizer use efficiency for greater economy in fertilizer usage. This would

include adapting the various methods to fully utilize the by-products in the mill on a

large scale in a practical manner as another source of soil amendments and fertilizers

and not fertilizer substitutes or waste products. Thus, their agronomic and economic

23
values must be painstakingly computed as shown in Goh et al. (1999). Any potential

wastage in the fertilizer management system such as luxurious fertilizer regimes for

the sites, poor fertilizer quality and incorrect timing of fertilizer application must be

strictly attended to immediately.

The next step is to be fully aware of the factors affecting the economics of fertilizer

usage as provided by Hew et al. (1973) and Lo and Goh (1977). Some of the major

factors in the computation are the base yield, fertilizer response, discount factor,

prices of palm oil and fertilizers, and agricultural risk. These factors are site

dependent i.e. soils, palm age, climate and their interaction with nutrients and thus, it

should be the agronomist who determines the quantum and where fertilizer should be

reduced to meet the company’s cash flow and anticipated profit. Ng and Goh (2003)

also showed that the type of agricultural risk to be taken depends on the economic

situation and cash flow of the company. Under tight cash flow or low profitability,

risk preference approach is probably the best option.

In determining the fertilizer response curve, the agronomist should calculate the

impact of both fertilizer withdrawal and subsequent re-application of fertilizer. An

example is illustrated in the self-explanatory Figure 13 where seasonal trend has been

removed. The main features to note in this graph are:

a) The decline in yield depends on palm nutritional status, soil fertility and time

b) There is a time lapse of about a year before a linear decline in yield is observed

c) The minimum yield depends on soil fertility and palm age

24
d) The recovery rate depends on palm nutritional status

e) When the palm is severely malnourished, its maximum yield is about 10%

below its potential even after full recovery (Warriar and Piggott, 1973; Caliman

et al., 1994). The reason for this is still uncertain.

Reducing fertilizers or totally withdrawing them for economic reasons should always

be a last resort because some yield loss will ultimately happen and the economic

optimum is usually not achieved. However, it will relieve the cash flow problem of

the company because fertilizer cost is the largest operational cost in managing an oil

palm plantation. Thus, if fertilizer withdrawal is absolutely necessary, the following

strategy might be followed but it certainly require a competent agronomist to

implement it correctly:

a) Select the nutrient with the least impact on FFB yield (revenue depends on

prices and thus difficult to target)

b) Any cheaper sources?

c) Select soil types/fertility with lowest FFB yield response to the nutrient

d) Select the climatic zone with least impact on FFB yield

e) Select palm age category with least impact on FFB yield

f) Go to step (a) until objective is achieved

This strategy will choose the category of palms for fertilizer withdrawal and the

nutrients and quantity to be withdrawn that will result in the least impact on FFB yield

allowing quicker recovery when the economic situation improves. It is also site-

25
specific. Thus, it is superior to the usual strategy of many companies to cut fertilizers

by a certain margin across the board, which may lead to drastic yield decline in areas

with good fertilizer responses.

Sources of fertilizers

In 2007, urea accounted for more than 50 % of the world N production (excluding

ammonia). This is also true in Malaysia where urea and urea-based fertilizers will take

the lion share of the N market although in the oil palm industry, the converse may be

true. The latter was due to the unpredictable N volatilization losses on inland soils

which deter most agronomists from recommending it widely. If the N volatilization

losses can be controlled to a predictable, narrow range for each environment, then it is

possible to use urea as a main source of N for oil palm on inland soils whenever it is

cost effective.

Currently, many methods are available to reduce N volatilization losses from urea

such as urease inhibitors, S-coating (perhaps using 10% S only since Malaysian soils

are generally acidic), humic acid, K and B. Also, slow release fertilizers and bio-

fertilizers which are urea based are being marketed in Malaysia. We should conduct

proper, well replicated trials to evaluate their effectiveness for oil palm on inland

soils. Another way to stop or minimize N volatilization from urea is to apply it under

AA+ MulchTM or FELDA Mulch.

26
There is also a growing interest in bio-fertilizers because of the premise that the soils

under oil palm are relatively sterile due to long-term fertilizer usage, and the effective

microorganisms (EM) in bio-fertilizers can rejuvenate the soils leading to improve

soil fertility and subsequent better productivity. Microbes are the unseen majority in

soils but despite their abundance, the impact of soil microbes on ecosystem processes

is still poorly understood (van der Heijden et al., 2008). The latter workers, in their

extensive review, concluded that soil microbes must be considered as important

drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Despite this

enthusiasm, there has been no conclusive evidence that introduced EM improve crop

productivity in the fields. Similarly, Blal (1989) working on the effectiveness of

vesicular-arbuscular endomycorrhizas on oil palm showed that it was only effective

on sterile soils. Nevertheless, this new area of research should be explored albeit at a

lower level to provide data on the best route to take.

Fertilizer quality

Fertilizer quality has always been a concern to the industry. Although we have SIRIM

standards, they were drawn up at a time when fertilizer prices were relatively low.

With the current high fertilizer prices and the improvement in laboratory techniques

and fertilizer manufacturing technology, it is perhaps logical or even warranted to call

for a review of the standards particularly those related to compound fertilizers and

fertilizer mixture. Also, newer experimental data are now available to assess the

effectiveness of various fertilizers such as rock phosphate (Chan and Goh, 1997a, Zin

et al., 2001) which should be incorporated into the standards.

27
RSPO

The creation of RSPO has added another dimension to the many aspects of an

agronomist’s roles because fertilizer management is part of the Principles and Criteria

of sustainable palm oil under Principle 4.2. This Principle states that soil fertility

should be maintained or improved to a level that ensures optimal and sustained yield

by monitoring the trend of soil organic matter and net fertilizer inputs. As expounded

earlier, this has always been a feature in the conventional fertilizer management

system of oil palm.

Ng et al. (2004) showed that soil organic C decreased with time in the oil palm

plantation during the period when the oil palm biomass was allowed to be burnt or

partially burnt at replanting. However, large increases in soil organic C occurred with

the current zero burnt replanting technique in the first few years. This positive change

has not been traced over the life cycle of oil palm and moreover, there is currently no

conclusive evidence to show that the improved soil organic C will lead to better or

sustained productivity/yield of oil palm to the best of our knowledge. This provides a

golden opportunity for researchers to undertake the study in order to understand the

mechanism and impact of this important subject matter.

Chew et al. (1994a), Kee et al. (1995) and Ng et al. (2004) demonstrated that soil pH

will decline at localised area in the oil palm agro-ecosystem such as the palm circle

due to the use of acidifying N fertilizer. However, it does not appear to affect the

28
productivity of oil palm. There is also a strong build-up of soil P and K especially in

the palm circle in order to maintain adequate solution P and K for optimal uptake of

these nutrients by the palms. We need to develop some methods to improve the uptake

of these nutrients in the palm circles by the palms perhaps by increasing soil organic

matter and/or soil pH or through soil microbes.

Chew et al. (1994a) in their review clearly showed that leaching losses of nutrients

under oil palm were relatively low. This was supported by Foong (1993), Omoti et al.

(1983), Schroth et al. (2000) and recent unpublished work at AAR where the latter

showed non-significant difference in solution nitrate concentrations between the

optimal N rate and without N input at 120 cm depth after 18 years of differential

fertilizer treatments (Figure 14).

Chew et al. (1994a) and Kee and Chew (1996) also showed that the off-site effect of

applied nutrients, which are mainly in the forms of run-off and erosion, were

generally low at less than 15% if they were applied during suitable months for

fertilizer application. The major concern here is the lack of data to assess the impact

of these processes in hilly areas on the environment and fertilizer use efficiency.

Nevertheless, Chew et al. (1994a) concluded that the major risks to the environment

arise from the following:

a) At times of clearing for oil palm planting with the large release of soluble

nutrients especially K from old stand of oil palm

29
 b) Over-application of fertilizer to young palms before full development of the

root system or full growth when leaching losses are highest. Split fertilizer

applications are very important at this stage to improve nutrient uptake

efficiency.

These two aspects of oil palm cultivation are currently subjects of active research in

Malaysia.

Of interest to many researchers now is the maintenance or improvement of soil

quality. In fact, in highly weathered and degraded soils of the tropics, the latter is

more important to sustain high yield and profitability. However, the definition of soil

quality is still subject to much debate. Nevertheless, RSPO indirectly stated that soil

quality includes structure, organic matter content, nutrient status and microbiological

health of the soil. While the definition of soil quality may not be the most important to

our industry, we should still establish quickly some practical agro-biological

indicators of the soils that have significance on the fertilizer management and

sustained productivity.

Climate change and variability

Climate change and its variability have existed since time immemorial. A large

proportion of these changes is natural and involves geophysical processes. However,

the main concern now is the rapid rate of climate change globally that is detected

recently and generally attributed to anthropogenic causes. The evidences for the latter

30
thus far especially in the long-term have been scientifically weak. In fertilizer

management of oil palm, our main concerns are the impact of fertilizer use on

a) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission

b) soil C build-up

c) energy use

In GHG emission, it is probably only relevant in “wet” soils where the risk of

anaerobic conditions is higher with consequent methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Melling et al. (2006) showed that the application of urea to oil palm on deep tropical

peat only resulted in a short-term emission of small amount of methane in the month

of application (Figure 15). The effect disappeared two months after urea application.

This short term effect was ascribed to reduced oxidation of methane due to its

inhibition by NH4+ ion which was produced when urea hydrolysed. Urea application

to deep tropical peat under oil palm has no significant effect on nitrous oxide emission

(Melling et al., 2007). Although these results showed that urea has little or no role on

GHG emission from tropical peat under oil palm, further work is necessary for a firm

conclusion to be made.

Fertilization has been shown to enhance the productivity of oil palm with consequent

better rooting system of more than 12 t dry matter per ha. However, the sequestration

of this organic matter to soil organic C in different environments is still uncertain.

There is also a lack of data on C sequestration from the various sources of organic

matter produced by the oil palm e.g. pruned fronds, EFB, POME and decanter cake,

31
and the leguminous cover crops. This information has a large bearing on the C cycle

of oil palm and its impact on climate change.

The energy balance of oil palm has been estimated by a few workers such as Wood

and Corley (1993), Reijnders and Huijbregts (2008) and Wicke et al. (2008).

However, they generally did not include the latest technology of fertilizer production

which is more energy efficient (de Vries, 2008), the increasing use of locally

manufactured urea based fertilizer and recycling of oil palm biomass residues and mill

by-products and thus, probably grossly over-estimated the energy use in oil palm

plantation. It is critical that a new life cycle analysis (LCA) of the energy balance of

oil palm be made in view of the pressing need to correctly inform our buyers,

consumers and NGOs with scientifically based data.

Competent agronomists

The current and future crop of agronomists has a formidable task not only to improve

fertilizer use efficiency and palm oil yield but also meet the many challenges listed

above and future work below. Thus, they must have the leadership and creativity to

meet these challenges and the courage and commitment to pursue and persevere

towards their convictions and maintain the highest standards possible. The ability to

adapt to change and avoid self ego is essential if we are to maintain our edge over the

competing vegetable oil crops in the long run. Also, the agronomists are now

regularly requested to evaluate untested products for the plantations. They must

maintain their integrity and based their decisions on scientific ground and guiding

32
principles of soil and plant nutrition, and do not allow friendship and emotion to cloud

their judgement. The other roles of agronomists were well described by Chan and Goh

(1997b) and Chew and Goh (2003). The cooperation between agronomists from

different organisations should continue to be fostered and joint research work initiated

to solve problems of common interest. With the rapid expansion of oil palm

worldwide, the number of agronomists required has also increased correspondingly

and the lack of competent agronomists is becoming apparent. The industry will do

well to provide the necessary atmosphere, coercion, training, facility and

remuneration to attract the best and ensure that this unenviable task is under good

hands.

FUTURE WORK AND CONCLUSION

Fertilizer management plays a pivotal role in the productivity and profitability of oil

palm. At times of high fertilizer costs and/or low palm oil prices, questions about how

fertilizer rates can be trimmed and risks managed will be frequently asked.

Unfortunately, there are no general quick fixes and individuals have to assess for

themselves the risks they are willing to take (Murrell, 2009) and falling back to the

guiding principles of fertilizer management of oil palm. In fact, in this paper, we have

outlined the fundamental of oil palm nutrition and the principles behind recommended

fertilizer management, a good knowledge of them is highly essential to implement the

strategy to tackle the uncertainties and economics difficulty with informed and

evidence-based decisions rather than personal perception and preference.

33
The future work in oil palm agronomy has been well discussed by Soh et al. (2006),

Kee and Goh (2006), Goh (2005), Chew and Goh (2003), Kee et al. (2003) and Chew

et al. (1997) just to name a few from AAR only amongst the many from other

organisations in the oil palm industry over the years. It is neither our duty nor the

place here to summarize these papers but to complement them.

The principles and philosophy of nutrient budget have served us well as evidenced by

the high productivity of oil palm despite being largely grown on weathered, degraded

soils in the tropics. Currently, the oil palm has probably the best nutrient use

efficiency per tonne of vegetable oil. While the K budget can account for the optimal

K rates in fertilizer response experiments, the N budget cannot explain over 30% of

the N balance (Table 14) in the same set of experiments. This will require the more

difficult research work on nutrient cycling and dynamics, which should yield results

for further improvement of fertilizer use efficiency of oil palm. This work should

include other minor nutrients and elements known to affect crop performances.

The roles of biotic factors on palm nutrition are expected to become more prominent

as we breed for truer inbred hybrids with more uniform (identical) genetic make-up on

a commercial scale. Similarly, the greater use of clones and re-clones will necessitate

the study of their specific or differential nutrient requirements. For example, in Clone

1, there was hardly any response to K fertilizer inputs after years of experimentation

compared with Clone 2 and DxP materials (Figure 16). Similar results have been

reported by Jacquemard et al. (2002) and Donough et al. (1996). Another black box in

34
oil palm nutrition is the roles of soil microbes and biodiversity. This needs urgent

studies if we are to exploit this largely unknown soil resource.

The lack of study on physiological plant nutrition in the oil palm industry is still

glaring. This deficiency must be addressed quickly to understand the various

phenomena seen in the fields such as pre-mature frond desiccation, relationship

between pest and diseases and palm nutrition, the root system and its mechanism for

nutrient uptake, and the roles of plant nutrition in climate change amongst others; and

develop new direction for studying plant nutrition and better, practical fertilizer use

technology.

In the seventies and early eighties, there was much co-operation among the research

organisations in Malaysia for joint research on common problems and meta-analysis

of experimental data. For example, the combined analysis of fertilizer response trials

from the industry by Dr. Foster and co-workers has resulted in a fertilizer

recommendation system for oil palm and a set of indicators of palm health (Goh,

2005). However, newer agronomic data are now available and these experiments are

conducted with later generation of planting materials and current recommended

management practices on more diverse soil types and environments, which are

probably more relevant to the industry today. Thus, it appears logical to conduct

another meta-analysis of these newer data.

The palm oil mills should be regarded as large stores or reservoirs of

nutrients/fertilizers and carbon/organic matter. The current methods to utilize these

35
resources are still tedious, laborious, cumbersome and limited to specific areas.

Furthermore, the expensive soluble nutrients such as K are probably not fully

recovered. Theoretically, if all the nutrients can be recovered, the oil palm industry

needs very little fertilizers because our main produce, palm oil, does not contain much

nutrients. While we are not suggesting turning the palm oil mill into fertilizer factory,

scrutinizing for new technology to recover these nutrients and carbon and making

them user friendly e.g. granulation or liquid fertilizers are urgently needed. In fact, a

growing number of agronomists worldwide has the opinion that producing higher

yields requires not only advanced genetics but good agronomic management which

includes good plant nutrition utilizing both organic and inorganic nutrient sources

(Roberts, 2009). Apart from the above impact, it will have huge implications on

carbon credit, carbon balance, energy balance, sustainability and a host of other

initiatives related to global palm oil trade.

Research work on precision agriculture in oil palm has commenced in the 1990s and

its potential applications have been demonstrated (Goh et al., 2000). For example, the

generation and combination of yield maps of plots with and without nitrogen

application in a classical fertilizer response trial (about 25 ha) using geostatistical

methods showed strong spatial yield responses to nitrogen (Figure 17). They ranged

from good FFB yield response of more than 50 kg/palm/yr or 6.6 t/ha/yr in the central

portion of the field to poor or negative yield responses in the eastern and western

parts. This information can be transformed into management zone for site-specific

management (Anuar et al., 2008). Further work is needed to exploit this technology

36
for improved effectiveness and efficiency of inputs leading to better productivity and

profitability.

The oil palm environments comprise numerous elements or growing conditions where

their interplays have a strong impact on the yield response to fertilizer inputs. For

example, Kee and Chew (1993) demonstrated that the N rate may be reduced by half

under irrigated compared with non-irrigated oil palm in an area with monsoonal

climate (Figure 18). This was attributed to better nutrient uptake under adequate soil

water throughout the year ensuring optimal palm nutritional status at most times with

consequent fuller expression of FFB yields. Similarly, FELDA Agricultural Services

Sdn Bhd. (FASSB) clearly showed that the FFB yields of oil palm under irrigated

condition in a dry region were consistently higher (35% or 45 t/ha over five years)

than non-irrigated condition given the same fertilizer regime (Figure 19). These

results indicate that we may need a series of multi-factorial trials to decipher and

understand the role of each growing condition on fertilizer response and to provide the

recommended set to the planters to implement for best results. In fact, it is of utmost

importance that the agronomists identify these conditions and design farming system

that optimises the fertilizer use efficiency.

Technology, techniques and equipment are now available and there are hardly any

reasons why these studies cannot be undertaken successfully. What is needed is

creativity and ingenuity to solve our problems. As published by The Sunday Star, the

local newspaper on 5th April 2009, “Science triumphs common sense when it really

matters”. Thus, the future of effective fertilizers, fertilizer use efficiency and fertilizer

37
management, and the consequent productivity of oil palm reside in continuous

generation of new applicable sciences, adaption of new technologies and designing

new methods to implement them correctly and efficiently, and reducing the

uncertainties related to fertilizer management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The first two authors are grateful to their Principals, Messrs. Boustead Plantations

Bhd. And KL-Kepong Bhd. and their company, Advanced Agriecological Research

Sdn. Bhd. for permission to present this paper. The third author wishes to thank the

Executive Director / CEO of FELDA Agricultural Services Sdn. Bhd., Mr. S.

Palaniappan for permission to publish this paper. He also thanks Hj. Suhaidi Hamzah

(General Manager of R&D) and Mr. Leong Cheng Woh (FASSB, advisor) for their

useful comments. We also thank our colleagues for their comments, suggestions and

assistance in the preparation of the paper.

REFERENCES

ANUAR, A.R., GOH, K.J., TEE, B.H. and AHMED, O.H. 2008 Transforming

spatial-temporal yield maps to classified management zone maps for efficient

fertilizer management of oil palm. Am. J. Applied Sciences 5(10): 1392-1396.

38
AZMI M, ILANGOVAN K, LEONG, C. W. and ISMAIL, H. 2002 Preliminary

investigations and operational aspects of sub-soil application of fertilizer in oil

palm. Kemajuan Penyelidikan Bil. 39, Disember 2002: 35-45.

BLAL, B. 1989 Les endomycorhizes VA chez le palmier a huile (E. guineensis Jacq.):

role dans la regulation de la croissance et dans la nutrition minerale des jeunes

plants de clones micropropages. These de Doctorat. Universite de Bourgogne:

98 pp (cited by Caliman et al. (1994)).

CALIMAN, J.P., DANIEL, C. and TAILLIEZ, B. 1994 Oil palm mineral nutrition.

Plantations, Research and Development: 36-54.

CHAN, K.W. 1982 Potassium requirement of oil palm in Malaysia: Fifty years of

experimental results. In: Phosphorus and Potassium in the Tropics

(Pushparajah, E. and Sharifuddin, H.A., eds.), Malaysian Society of Soil

Science, Kuala Lumpur: 323-348.

CHAN, K.S. and GOH, K.J. 1997a Characterisation of phosphate rock reactivity and

implication on management practices in Malaysia. In: Proc. Soil Science Conf.

of Malaysia 1994 on Managing Soil Resources efficiently (Aziz, B. and Hawa,

J., eds), Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Selangor, Malaysia: 89-97.

CHAN, W.H. and GOH, K.J. 1997b A short note on effective advisory service in

private sector. ISOPA Newsletter, December 1998. Vol.6: 1-3.

39
CHAN, K.W., LIM, K.C. and AHMAD, A. 1993 Fertiliser efficiency studies in

Malaysia. In: 1991 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Conf. – Agriculture (Basiron Y.,

Jalani, S., Chang, K.C., Cheah, S.C., Henson, I.E., Kamarudin, N., Paranjothy,

K., Rajanaidu, N. and Tayeb, D., eds), PORIM, Kuala Lumpur: 302 – 311.

CHEW P.S. and GOH K.J. 2003 Maximising palm oil yields on estates (keynote

lecture). In: MOSTA Seminar 9 on Recent Advances in the Oil Palm Sector:

Agriculture, Plantation Management, End Uses and Nutrition, May 8-9

Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysian Oil Scientists and Technologists Association, Kuala

Lumpur: Preprint.

CHEW, P.S., SOH, A.C. and GOH, K.J. 1997 Notes on revitalising plantation

agriculture in Malaysia. The Planter 73 (854): 247-253.

CHEW, P.S., KEE, K.K., GOH, K.J., QUAH, Y.T., and TEY, S.H. 1994a Fertiliser

management in oil palms. In: Proc. Int. Conf. On Fertilizer Usage in the Tropics

(FERTROP, 1992) (B. Aziz, chief ed.), Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Kuala

Lumpur: 43-67.

CHEW, P.S., QUAH, Y.T. and PUSHPARAJAH, E. 1994b Sustainability of oil palm

plantations in Malaysia as assessed by a framework approach. In Proc. Int.

Planters’ Conference on Management for Enhanced Profitability in Plantations

(Chee, K.H., ed), Inc. Soc. of Planters, Kuala Lumpur: 531-554.

40
CORLEY, R.H.V. 1985 Yield potentials of plantation crops. Potassium in the

agricultural systems of the Humid Tropics. International Potash Institute Bern,

Switzerland : 61-80.

CORLEY, R.H.V. 2008 How much palm oil do we need? Environ. Sci. Policy,

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.011

CORLEY, R.H.V. and TINKER, P.B. 2003 The Oil Palm. 4th Edition, Blackwell

Sciences Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom: 562 pp.

DAVIDSON, L. 1993 Management for efficient, cost-effective and productive oil

palm plantations. In: 1991 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Conf. – Agriculture (Basiron

Y., Jalani, S., Chang, K.C., Cheah, S.C., Henson, I.E., Kamarudin, N.,

Paranjothy, K., Rajanaidu, N. and Tayeb, D., eds), PORIM, Kuala Lumpur:

153-170.

DE VRIES, S.C. 2008 The bio-fuel debate and fossil energy use in palm oil

production: a critique of Reijnders and Huijbregts 2007. J. Clean Prod (2008),

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.01.009.

DONOUGH, C.R., CORLEY, R.H.V., LAW, I.H. and NG, M. 1996 First results from

an oil palm clone x fertilizer trial. The Planter 72: 69-87.

41
FOONG, S.F. 1993 Potential evapotranspiration, potential yield and leaching losses of

oil palm. In: 1991 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Conf. – Agriculture (Basiron Y., Jalani,

S., Chang, K.C., Cheah, S.C., Henson, I.E., Kamarudin, N., Paranjothy, K.,

Rajanaidu, N. and Tayeb, D., eds), PORIM, Kuala Lumpur: 105-119.

FOONG, S.F., AZMI, M. and ISMAIL, H. 1996 Early results of 33 NPK factorial

fertilizer trial on Sahabat soil for mature oil palm in Sabah. Kemajuan

Penyelidikan Bil 27. pp. 18-21.

GOH, K.J. 2005 Fertilizer recommendation systems for oil palm: estimating the

fertiliser rates. In: Proceedings of MOSTA Best Practices Workshops –

Agronomy and Crop Management (Chew, P.S. and Tan, Y.P., eds), Malaysian

Oil Scientists’ and Technologists’ Association (MOSTA): 235-268.

GOH, K.J. and TEO, C.B. 1997 Yield potentials and agronomic limitations of oil

palms in Tawau-Semporna region, Sabah, Malaysia. In: MSSS Soil

Familiarisation Tour 2/97, Tawau-Semporna, Sabah, MSSS, Kuala Lumpur: 16

pp.

GOH K.J. and HÄRDTER, R. 2003 General oil palm nutrition. In: Oil palm:

Management for large and sustainable yields (Fairhurst, T. and Härdter, R., eds),

Potash & Phosphate Institute and International Potash Institute: 191-230.

42
GOH, K.J., CHEW, P.S. and TEO, C.B. 1994 Maximising and maintaining oil palm

yields on commercial scale in Malaysia. In: ISP Planters’ Conference on

Managing Oil Palms for Enhanced Profitability (Chee, K.H., ed), ISP, Kuala

Lumpur: 121-141.

GOH, K.J., TEO, C.B., CHEW, P.S. and CHIU, S. B. 1999 Fertiliser management in

oil palm: Agronomic principles and field practices. In: Fertiliser management for

oil palm plantations, 20-21, September 1999, ISP North-east Branch, Sandakan,

Malaysia: 44 pp.

GOH, K.J., TEE, B.H. and ANUAR, A.R. 2000 Applicability of precision farming for

oil palm plantations in Malaysia. In: Seminar on Precision Farming, 16 October

2000, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia and Agricultural Institute of Malaysia,

Serdang: Preprint.

GOH K.J., GAN H.H. and SOH A.C. 2002 Oil palm productivity: Commercial FFB

yield analysis. In: MPOA seminar 2002: R&D for competitive edge in the

Malaysian OP industry, Malaysian Palm Oil Association, Kuala Lumpur:

Preprint.

GOH K.J., HÄRDTER, R. and FAIRHURST, T. 2003 Fertilizing for maximum

return. In: Oil palm: Management for large and sustainable yields (Fairhurst, R.

and Härdter, R., eds), Potash & Phosphate Institute and International Potash

Institute: 279-306.

43
GOH, K.J. and TEO, C.B. 2008 Agronomic principles and practices of fertilizer

management of oil palm. In: ACT2008: Agronomic Principles and Practices of

Oil Palm Cultivation, 13-16 October 2008, Sibu, Sarawak: 157-210.

HEW, C.K., NG, S.K. and LIM, K.P. 1973 The rationalization of manuring in oil

palms and its economics in Malaysia. In: Advances in Oil Palm Cultivation

(Wastie, R.L. and Earp, D.A., eds.), Inc. Soc. Planters, Kuala Lumpur: 306-

323.

JACQUEMARD, J. CH., TALLIEZ, B., DADANG, K., OUVRIER, M. and

ASMADY, H. 2002 Oil palm nutrition: planting material effect. In: 2002 Int.

Oil Palm Conf. and Exhibition, 8-12 July 2002, IOPRI, Bali, Indonesia:

Preprint.

JALANI, B.S., YUSOF, B., ARIFFIN, D., CHAN, K.W. and RAJANAIDU, N. 2003

Elevating the National Oil Palm Productivity: General Perspectives. In: Proc. of

Seminar on Elevating the National Oil Palm Productivity (Mohd. Basri, W.,

Chan, K.W., Tayeb, M.D. and Sundram, S., eds), MPOB, Bangi: 20 – 36.

KEE, K.K. and CHEW, P.S. 1993 Oil palm responses to Nitrogen and drip irrigation

in a wet monsoonal climate in P. Malaysia. In: Proc. 1991 PORIM Int. Palm Oil

Conf. – Agriculture (Basiron, Y. and Jalani, B.S., eds), Palm Oil Res. Inst.

Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: 321 – 339.

44
KEE, K.K. and CHEW, P.S. 1996 Nutrient losses through runoff and soil erosion –

implications for improved fertiliser efficiency in mature oil palms. In: Proc.

PORIM 1996 Int. Palm Oil Congress on Competitiveness for the 21st Century

(Ariffin, D., Mohd. Basri, W., Rajanaidu, N., Tayeb, M.D., Paranjothy, K.,

Cheah, S.C., Chang, K.C. and Ravigadevi, S., eds), PORIM, Kuala Lumpur:

153-169.

KEE, K.K. and GOH, K.J. 2006 Efficient fertilizer management for higher

productivity and sustainability in oil palm production. In: Int. Planters Conf.

2006 on Higher Productivity and Efficient Practices for Sustainable Plantation

Agriculture, Vol. 1: Technical Papers, ISP, Kuala Lumpur: 157 – 182.

KEE, K.K., GOH, K.J., CHOW, K.C. and TEO, L. 2005 Improvement of efficiency

of fertiliser applications. In: Proceedings of MOSTA Best Practices Workshops –

Agronomy and Crop Management (Chew, P.S. and Tan, Y.P., eds), Malaysian

Oil Scientists’ and Technologists’ Association (MOSTA): 269-291.

KEE, K.K., GOH, K.J. and SOH, A.C. 2003 R&D efforts in efficient utilization of

natural resources in oil palm cultivation. In: Proc. Int. Conf. On Globalisation

and its Impact on the Palm Oil Industry, Vol. I. Technical Papers (Pushparajah,

E. and Chee, K.H., eds), The Incorporated Soc. of Planters, Kuala Lumpur: 175-

209.

45
KEE, K.K., GOH, K.J. and CHEW, P.S. 1995 Effects of NK fertiliser on soil pH and

exchangeable K status on acid soils in an oil palm ecosystem in Malaysia. In:

Plant-Soil Interactions at Low pH: Principles and Management (Date, R.A.,

Grundon, N.J., Rayment, G.E. and Probert, M.E., eds). Developments in Plant

and Soil Sciences Vol. 64, Kluwer Academic Publ., The Netherlands: 809-815.

KEE, K.K., GOH, K.J., CHEW, P.S. and TEY, S.H. 1994 An integrated site specific

fertilliser recommendations system (INFERS) for high productivity in mature oil

palms. In: ISP Planters’ Conference on Managing Oil Palms for Enhanced

Profitability (Chee, K.H., ed), ISP, Kuala Lumpur: 83-100.

KOK, T.F., GOH, K.J., CHEW, P.S., GAN, H.H., HENG, Y.C., TEY, S.H. and KEE,

K.K. 2000 Advances in oil palm agronomic recommendations. In: International

Planters Conference on Plantation Tree Crops in the New Millenium: The Way

Ahead (Pushparajah, E., ed), Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur:

215-232.

LAM, M.K., KOK, T.T., LEE, K.T. and ABDUL RAHMAN, M. 2009 Malaysian

palm oil: Surviving the food versus fuel dispute for a sustainable future.

Renewal and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13: 1456-1464.

LEE, C.T., TAN, C.C. and HASHIM, I. 2008 Application of EFB/POME compost

and FELDA mulch on growth and early yield performance in oil palm replants.

Kemajuan Penyelidikan 51: 25-38.

46
LIM, C.H., SINGH, G. and LIM, K.H. 1999 Production of organic fertilisers and soil

conditioners. In: Oil Palm and the Environment – A Malaysian Perspective

(Singh, G., Lim, K.H., Teo, L. and Lee, K., eds), Malaysian Oil Palm Growers’

Council, Kuala Lumpur: 185-197.

LIM, K.C. and CHAN, K.W. 1992 A comparison of aerial application, mechanised

spreading and hand application of N and K fertilisers in oil palm. GPAS

Agricultural Seminar, 19th – 21st May, 1992, Guthrie Bhd.: Preprint.

LIM, K.C., YEE, C.B., GOH, K.H. and CHAN, K.W. 1982 Results of a field

experiment comparing various nitrogen fertilisers for oil palm. In: Int. Conf. on

Soils and Nutrition of Perennial Crops (Bachik, A.T. and Pushparajah, E., eds.),

Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur: 393 – 410.

LIM K. H., SILEK B and HII J. M. 2003 Trials on fertilizer protection under high

rainfall conditions. In: Proc. of the PIPOC 2003 International Palm Oil

Congress on Palm Oil: The Power-House for the Global Oils and Fats

Economy – Agriculture Conference, Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kuala Lumpur:

899-916.

LO, K.K. and GOH, K.H. 1973 The analysis of experiments on the economics of

fertilizer application on oil palms. In: Advances in Oil Palm Cultivation (Wastie,

R.L. and Earp, D.A., eds.) Inc. Soc. Planters, Kuala Lumpur: 324-337.

47
MANJIT S., MOK C. K. ZULKASTA S. and SURIANTO 2002 Comparative

efficacy of two methods of fertilizer placement in mature oil palm and cocoa

plantings. The Planter 78:179-193.

MELLING, L., HATANO, R. and GOH, K.J. 2007 Nitrous oxide emissions from

three ecosystems in tropical peatland of Sarawak, Malaysia. Soil Science and

Plant Nutrition 53: 792-805.

MELLING, L., HATANO, R. and GOH, K.J. 2006 Short-term effect of urea on CH4

flux under the oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) on tropical peatland in Sarawak,

Malaysia. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 52: 788-792.

MOHD DIN, A., RAJANAIDU, N. and KUSHAIRI, A. 2005 Exploitation of genetic

variability in oil palm. In: Proc. MOSTA Best Practices Workshops 2004:

Agronomy and Crop Management (Chew, P.S. and Tan, Y.P., eds), MOSTA,

Selangor: 19-42.

MURRELL, T.S. 2009 Plants don’t care about the market. Better Crops 93 (1): 32.

MURRELL, T.S. and BRUULSEMA, T.W. 2008 Principles of allocating funds across

nutrients. Better Crops 92 (3): 3-5.

48
NG, P.H.C. and GOH, K.J. 2008 Managing hilly soils under oil palm. In: ACT2008:

Agronomic Principles and Practices of Oil Palm Cultivation, 13-16 October

2008, Sibu, Sarawak: 399-422.

NG, P.H.C. and GOH, K.J. 2004 Oil palm does not necessarily exhibit visual toxicity

symptoms to excessive fertilizer application. In: Proceedings of the Malaysian

Society of Soil Science 2004 (Zakaria, Z.Z., Balasundram, S.K., Goh, K.J.,

Hanafi, M.H., Izham, A., Fauziah, C.I. & Halimi, M.S., eds), Malaysian Society

of Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur: 121 – 123.

NG, P.H.C. and GOH, K.J. 2003 Basic principles of fertilizer management in Miri-

Bintulu Sarawak. In: MSSS Seminar on Managing Soils of the Miri-Bintulu area,

Sarawak, 8-11/12/2003, Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur:

Preprint.

NG, P.H.C., GAN, H.H. and GOH, K.J. 2004 Soil nutrient changes in Ultisols under

oil palm in Johor, Malaysia. In: Oils and Fats International Congress (OFIC)

2004 in module on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Sustainability (AB), 29-9 to

2/10 2004, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur: Preprint.

OMOTI, U., ATAGA, D.O. and ISENMILA, A.E. 1983 Leaching losses of nutrients

in oil palm plantations determined by tension lysimeters. Plant and Soil 73: 365-

376.

49
PUSHPARAJAH, E. 2002 Cultivation of oil palms in marginal areas – a revisit. In:

Plantation Management: Back to Basics. Proc. Of National ISP Sem. 2002,

Kuching, Sarawak, ISP, Kuala Lumpur: 69 – 82.

REIJNDERS, L. and HUIJBREGTS, M.A.J. 2008 Palm oil and the emission of

carbon-based greenhouse gases. J. Cleaner Production 16(4): 477-482.

ROBERTS, T.L. 2009 Facing future food needs. CSA News Vol. 54(4): 20.

SCHROTH, G., RODRIGUES, M.R.L. and ANGELO, S.A.D. 2000 Spatial patterns

of nitrogen mineralization, fertilizer distribution and roots explain nitrate

leaching from mature Amazonian oil palm plantation. Soil Use and Management

16: 222-229.

SINGH, G. 1990 Fertilizer responses in oil palms on a range of alluvial soils. In:

Proc. 1989 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Devt. Conf., Modulu 2 – Agriculture (Jalani,

S., Zin, Z.Z., Paranjothy, K., Ariffin, D., Rajanaidu, N., Cheah, S.C., Mohd.

Basri, W. and Henson, I., eds), Palm Oil Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala

Lumpur: 383-394.

SMYTH, A.J. and DUMANSKI, J. 1993 FESLM: An international framework for

evaluating sustainable land management. FAO World Soil Resource Report

No.73: 74 pp.

50
SOH, A.C., KEE, K.K. and GOH, K.J. 2006 Research and innovation toward

sustainable palm oil production. Journal of Science and Technology in the

Tropics 2: 77-95.

SOH, A.C., WONG, G., HOR, T.Y., TAN, C.C. and CHEW, P.S. 2003 Oil palm

genetic improvement. In: Janick, J. (ed) Plant Breeding Reviews Vol. 22: 165-

219.

SOON, B.B.F. and HOONG, H.W. 2002 Agronomic practices to alleviate soil surface

run-off losses in oil palm. In: Applications of modern tools in Agriculture.

Proc. Malaysian Soc. Of Soil Sc. Conf. 2002 (Hawa, Z.E.J. et al., eds).. MSSS,

Serdang: 124-128.

TAM, T.K. 1973 Culling and selection in oil palm nurseries. In: Advances in Oil Palm

Cultivation (Wastie, R.L. and Earp, D.A., eds). Incorporated Society of

Planters, Kuala Lumpur: 262-288.

TANG, M.K., NAZEEB, M. and LOONG, S.G. 1999 An insight into fertiliser types

and application methods in Malaysian oil palm plantations. The Planter 75

(876): 115-137.

TAYEB, M.D., FOSTER, H.L., TARMIZI, A.M., HAMDAN, A.B., KHALID, H.

and ZIN, Z.Z. 1990 Sustaining oil palm FFB yield through optimum fertilizer

management. In: 1989 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Development Conf. (Jalani, S.,

51
 Zin, Z.Z., Paranjothy, K., Ariffin, D., Rajanaidu, N., Cheah, S.C., Wahid, M.B.,

Henson, I.E. and Tayeb, D., eds), PORIM, Kuala Lumpur: 406 – 418.

TEO, L. 2001 Should we continue to expand oil palm cultivation? The Planter 77

(899): 63-64.

TEOH, K.C. and CHEW, P.S. 1980 Fertiliser responses of oil palm on coastal clay

soils in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Proc. Conf. on Soil Science and Agricultural

Development in Malaysia (Pushparajah, E. and Chin, S.L., eds), Malaysian

Society of Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur: 191-212.

TEOH, K.C. and CHEW, P.S. 1985 Investigation on areas and frequencies of

fertiliser application in mature oil palms. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Soils and

Nutrition of Perennial Crops (Bachik, A.T. and Pushparajah, E., eds), Malaysian

Society and Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur: 375-387.

THOENES, P. 2006 Biofuels and commodity markets – Palm oil focus. FAO,

Commodities and Trade Division. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/es/esc/common/ecg/122/en/full_paper_English.pdf

(downloaded on 9th May 2008)

TINKER, P.B. 2000 The Future Research Requirements for the Oil Palm Plantation.

In: Plantation Tree Crops in the New Millennium: The Way Ahead (Vol. 1) (E.

Pushparajah, ed.), The Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur : 3-40.

52
TINKER, P.B. and LEIGH, R.A. 1985 Nutrient uptake by plants – Efficiency and

Control. In: Int. Conf. on Soils and Nutrition of Perennial Crops (icosanp)

(Bachik, A.T. and Pushparajah, E., eds), Malaysian Society Soil Science, Kuala

Lumpur: 3-17.

TINKER, P.B. and NYE, P.H. 2000 Solute movement in the rhizosphere. Oxford

University Press, New York: 444 pp.

VAN DER HEIJDEN, M.G.A., BARDGETT, R.D. and VAN STRAALEN, N.M.

2008 The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and

productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 11: 296-310.

WARRIAR, S.M. and PIGGOTT, C.J. 1973 Rehabilitation of oil palms by corrective

manuring based on leaf analysis. In: Proc. Int. Oil Palm Conf. on Advances in

Oil Palm Cultivation (Wastie, R.L. and Earp, D.A., eds), Incorporated Society

of Planters, Kuala Lumpur: 289-304.

WICKE, B., DORNBURG, V., JUNQINGER, M. and FAAIJ, A. (2008) Different

palm oil production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas

implications. Biomass and Bioenergy 32: 1322-1337.

53
WOOD, B.J. and CORLEY, R.H.V. 1993 The energy balance of oil palm cultivation.

In: Proc. 1991 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Conf. – Agriculture (Basiron, Y. and

Jalani, B.S., eds), Palm Oil Res. Inst. Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: 130-143.

XAVIER, A., HO, S.H., VIJIANDRAN, J.R. and GURMIT, S. 2008 Managing

coastal and alluvial soils under oil palm. In: ACT2008: Agronomic Principles

and Practices of Oil Palm Cultivation, 13-16 October 2008, Sibu, Sarawak:

415-452.

ZIN, Z.Z., TARMIZI, M.A., FOSTER, H.L., TAYEB, M.D., KHALID, H. and

HAMDAN, A.B. 1990 Evaluation of urea as a nitrogen fertilizer for the oil palm

industry in Malaysia. In: Proc. 1989 PORIM Int. Palm Oil Devt. Conf.: Module

2, Agriculture (Jalani, S., Paranjothy, K., Ariffin, D., Rajanaidu, N., Cheah,

S.C., Basri, M.W. and Henson, I.E., eds), PORIM, Kuala Lumpur, 440-446.

ZIN, Z.Z., FOONG, S.F., JAMALUDIN, N., LEE, C.T., HAMDAN, A.B., TARMIZI,

A.M. and KHALID, H. 2001 Evaluation of various sources of phosphate

fertilizers for mature oil palm in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Proc. 2001 PIPOC

Int. Palm Oil Congress on Cutting-Rdge Technologies For Sustained

Competitiveness: Agric. Conf., Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kuala Lumpur: 272

– 281.

54
Figure 1: Global production and trade for palm oil and soybean oil

Source: Thoenes (2006)

Legend: Red line – palm oil; blue line - soybean

Figure 2: Effects of period of planting on oil palm yield trends in AAR advisory
estates (from Goh et al., 1994)

1
Figure 3: Vegetative growth and yield profile of well grown oil palms on inland soil
in Malaysia

2
 Figure 4: Effect of increasing mature areas (ha) on FFB yields of 11 large commercial
plantation companies in Malaysia in 2006

30
FFB yield (t/ha/yr)

28
High percentage of prime palms

26
Medium yield
High yield
24 Low yield
Linear (High yield)

22

20 High percentage
of old palms

18
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Area (ha)

Figure 5: Long-term responses of FFB yields to K fertilizer rates in coastal soils with
low bases (y-axis shows the relative yields of plots with and without K input). After
Xavier et al. (2008)

3
Figure 6: The needs for increasing fertilized soil volume to meet nutrient demand for
yield at high and low nutrient rate

Source: Murrell and Bruulsema (2008)

Figure 7: Effect of concentrations of nutrient solution on roots and leaf of oil palm

4
Figure 8: A composite picture showing the use of Felda mulch and AA+ plastic mulch
for immature oil palms. The latter, which was a replicated trial in Bahau district (rain-
shadowed region) clearly showed the superiority of AA+ plastic mulch where palms’
canopy sizes were larger with good vigour compared with those without mulch.

Figure 9: Effect of AA+ mulch on frond length of 1 year old palms on Gajah Mati
series (shallow lateritic) soils in a rain-shadow plantation

Source: Ng and Goh (2008)

5
 Figure 10: Effect of EFB on FFB yield response to K fertilizer in Durian series soil in
Malaysia

29
FFB yield (t/ha/yr)

28.5

28

EFB - Nil
27.5
EFB - 37.5 t/ha/yr

27

26.5

26
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
K rate (kg K2O/palm/yr)
Source: Recomputed from Chan et al. (1993)

Figure 11: Experimental testing of FELDA mulch for mature palms to reduce the
frequency of fertilizer application and surface run-off losses of nutrients.

Source: Lee et al. (2008)

6
 Figure 12: Effects of methods of fertilizer application using FELDA Mulch (FM) and
broadcasting (FSP) on leaf and rachis nutrient concentrations of oil palms. Trial was
layout in a high rainfall region in Lundu, Sarawak (FASSB, unpublished)

Figure 13: Predicted effects of fertilizer withdrawal and resumption on FFB yields in
Malaysia using AAR’s combinatorial model. Source: AAR (Unpublished)

32
N totally withdrawn
30 (N0)
FFB yield (t/ha/yr)

N at half optimum
28 rate (N1)
N at optimum rate
26
N resumption 1 year
24 later (N0)
N resumption 4
22 years later (N0)
N resumption 1 year
20 later (N1)
N resumption 4
18 years later (N1)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Years after treatment

7
Figure 14: Leaching losses of nitrate under oil palm on an ultisol after 16 years of
differential N inputs. Source: AAR (Unpublished)

8
 Figure 15: Monthly CH4 flux before and after urea application at the oil palm
plantation. Data represent mean ± standard error (n = 3)

Source: Melling et al. (2006)

Figure 16: Differential FFB yield responses of oil palms propagated by tissue culture
(clonal) and seeds (DxP) to K fertilizer in Kumansi Family soil in Sabah, Malaysia.
Average yields between 2003 and 2008 were shown in the graph. Source: AAR
(Unpublished)

36
FFB yield (t/ha/yr)

35

34
Clone 1
33 Clone 2
DxP
32

31

30
0 1 2 3 4
K rate (kg K2O/palm/yr)

9
 Figure 17: Spatial FFB yield response of oil palms on Kumansi Family soil to N
fertilizers

Source: Goh et al. (2000)

Figure 18: Effect of irrigation on N response of oil palm in a wet monsoonal climate
in Malaysia

29
Mean FFB yields (kg/palm/yr)

27

25

23
Non irrigated
irrigated
21

19

17

15
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
N rate (kg N/palm/yr)

Source: Kee and Chew (1993)

10
Figure 19: Effect of fertilizer (N1P1K1) on oil palm yields in a dry region under
irrigated and non-irrigated (FASSB, unpublished)

11
Table 1: Area and additional area of oil palm and soybean required to meet demand
for vegetable oil in 2050

Oil Current area Additional area Total area

Rate of required (million ha) (million ha) (million ha)
consumption (million Oil Oil Oil
Category (kg/person) tons) palm Soybean palm Soybean palm Soybean
Low 20 117 11 92 18 216 29 308
Medium 25 156 11 92 28 319 39 411
High 37 256 11 92 53 582 64 674
Note: Palm oil and soybean oil yields were assumed to be at current levels of 4 and
0.38 t/ha/yr

Table 2: Current yield gaps (t/ha/yr palm oil) in Malaysia

Scale References Yield (t palm oil/ha/yr)

Theoretical maximum Corley (1985) 17
yield
Small scale breeding trials Mohd Din et al. (2005) 12
Best trial yields Jalani et al. (2003) 8.6 – 11.5
Best field yields Goh et al. (2002) 4.7 – 6.8
National yields Tinker (2000) 3.0 – 4.4

1
Table 3: Fresh fruit bunch yields (t/ha/yr) in maximum yielding and control (without
fertilizer) plots from oil palm fertilizer trials

Trial period Site Soils Maximum Control

1970s – 80s Inland Bungor 31.8 8.6
Rengam 27.7 – 32.5 11.2 – 18.2
Serdang 32.3 12.0
Durian 25.6 – 36.8 13.0 – 23.0
Munchong 29.9 – 34.6 11.6 – 24.4
Batu Anam 25.5 – 33.0 17.3 – 28.1
Malacca 27.9 – 29.3 22.9 -25.9
Kumansi 31.2 23.6
Batang 33.8 28.9
Coastal Carey 27.8 – 31.9 18.5 – 25.8
Selangor 35.1 – 36.1 30.0 – 34.0
Sedu 31.2 22.8
Briah 23.7 – 31.1 18.3 – 27.4
Riverine Akob 26.2 20
Sogomana 29.0 24.8
Lumisir 30.3 26.4
Koyah 32.7 21.1
Inanam 20.8 16.7
Buran 33.7 29.1
1980s – 90s Inland Rengam 34.4 – 38.5 12.1- 23.8
Munchong 35.2 22.8
Batang (lat) 39.7 21.2
Kumansi 37.9 – 45.8 18.9 – 25.7
Sahabat 38.8 24.6
Coastal Carey 28.8 27.1
Briah 30.3 25.7
Riverine Inanam 44.1 19.9
Buran 41.5 25.4
Source: Kee and Goh (2006), Foong et al. (1996) and AAR (Unpublished)

Table 4: Maximum and average yields of oil palms in different environments in

Malaysia

Environment Maximum yield (t/ha/yr) Average yield (t/ha/yr)

Good 35 29
Satisfactory 30 26
Fair 25 21
Poor 20 17
Note: Average yields between 4 and 25 years after planting

2
Table 5: Yields per hectare (ton product/ha/yr) in oilseeds and palm oil

Crop Location 1972/73 – 1980/81 – Change 2 1990/91 – Change 2

79/80 89/90 99/00
10 World 1.03 1.19 +15.5 % 1.38 +16.0 %
Oilseeds
Soyabean World 1.61 1.77 +9.9 % 2.11 +19.2 %
U.S. 1.91 2.04 +6.8 % 2.48 +21.6 %
Rapeseed World 0.86 1.22 +41.9 % 1.41 +15.6 %
Canada 1.08 1.22 +13.0 % 1.35 +10.7 %
Palm Oil World 2.55 3.08 +20.8 % 3.20 +3.9 %
Malaysia 3.40 3.57 +5.0 % 3.56 -0.3 %
After Mielke (2000)
1
Ten-year averages except 1972/3 – 79/80 (8 years)
2
In %, from previous 10 (8) year average

Table 6: Costs of production of palm oil in producing countries in US$ per t palm oil

Country Total Field Costs Total Milling Total Costs Total Costs
Costs US$/ t cpo RM/ t cpo
Indonesia 155.1 10.1 165.2 628
PNG 196.7 19,1 215.8 820
Malaysia 221.3 12.2 239.4 910
Colombia 234.5 58.3 292.8 1113

After Tek (2002)

Table 7: Increase in palm oil yield, 1951-1990, from Pamol estate, Kluang, Malaysia

Yield improvement factor Relative Yield % of total

increase (%) (t oil/ha) yield
increment
Actual yield, Pamol, Kluang (only K applied) 1.30
Complete fertilizer regime +93 2.50 29.1
Deli Dura selection +40 3.50 24.2
Introduction of Teneras +32 4.64 27.6
Polybag nursery +3 4.78 3.4
Drainage and water conservation +5 5.02 5.8
Introduction of E. kamerunicus +1 5.08 1.4
Increased factory efficiency +8 5.43 8.5
Actual yield, Mamor 1989/90 5.43
Source: Re-computed from Davidson (1993)

3
Table 8: Effect of NK interaction on yield and growth of oil palm on Rengam series
(Typic Paleudult) soil in Malaysia.

Parameters Nitrogen levels Potassium levels s.e.

K0 K1 K2
FFB Yield N0 71.6 65.3 66.3 4.3
(kg palm -1 y-1) N1 68.4 95.2 95.8
N2 79.1 95.8 98.6
Vegetative growth N0 88.9 84.0 89.2 4.0
(kg dry matter palm-1 y-1) N1 96.6 117.4 119.4
N2 106.4 120.0 123.0
Source: After Chan (1982)

Table 9: Yearly variations in FFB yields (t/ha/yr) on different soil types in Malaysia.

Soil Treatment Year after treatment Mean CV

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (%)
Briah Control 33 40 27 20 21 23 22 26 20.0
Optimum 33 33 31 29 26 29 27 31 14.2
Bernam Control 22 20 10 15 11 12 12 14 29.3
Optimum 27 25 17 24 17 19 24 22 17.1
Sogomana Control 31 27 23 25 27 20 32 26 15.0
Optimum 35 36 28 31 31 32 32 32 7.5
Rengam Control 24 22 18 22 26 22 17 21 13.5
Optimum 26 28 28 26 34 32 23 28 12.8
Malacca Control 11 14 12 12 16 18 13 13 18.5
Optimum 21 23 20 24 26 37 28 25 21.2
Adapted from Tayeb et al. (1990) and Lim et al. (1982)

4
 Table 10: Effect of various techniques to improve fertilizer use efficiency in oil palm
plantations

Absolute
difference Standardised
Yield %
Practice Treatment from best difference Reference
(t/ha/yr) difference
treatment (%)
(%)
Aerial 23.01 127 12 70
Hand 23.87 132 7 82 Lim et al.
Method
Mechanised 25.16 139 0 100 (1992)
Nil 18.1 100 39 0

Sub-soiling 19.1 127 23 55

Manjit et
Method Broadcast 22.5 150 0 100
al. (2002)
Nil 15 100 50 0

Twice a
18.4 136 9 81
year
Teoh and
Once a year 19.6 145 0 100
Frequency Chew
Once in 2
18.7 139 6 86 (1985)
years
Nil 13.5 100 45 0

Ammonium
28.19 104 3 55
sulphate
Nitro26 28.24 104 3 58
Ammonium Lim et al.
Sources 28.77 106 1 86
nitrate (1982)
Ammonium
29.02 107 0 100
chloride
Nil 27.18 100 7 0

Within
23.1 151 8 87
palm circle
Chan et
Placement Outside
24.3 159 0 100 al. (1993)
palm circle
Nil 15.3 100 59 0

February
25.38 101 11 8
(dry) Teoh and
Timing August Chew
28.24 112 0 100
(normal) (1980)
Nil 25.12 100 12 0
Note: Standardised difference (%) was probably over-estimated when absolute
difference from best treatment (%) was less than 20%.

5
Table 11: Effect of burying the fertilizers compared with surface application on FFB
yields of oil palms across various soil types

Method of Avg. yield per

Trial Site fertilizer year in t/ha Soil and terrain
application (%)
Normal 26.0 (100)
Tanjong Lipat family on
BS1 Sabah Bury
21.5 (83) hilly terrain
(2 rds/yr)
Normal
25.4 (100)
2 (4 rds) Paliu family on
UD Sabah
Bury undulating terrain
23.6 (93)
(2 rds/yr)
Normal
33.9 (100) Not available but
Negeri (4 rds/yr)
FD3 possibly on Durian
Sembilan Bury
32.6 (96) series.
(1 rd/yr)
Normal 19.4 (100)
TW4 Sibu Anderson 3. Flat
Bury 17.2 (87)

Normal 22.5 (100)

AAA5 Indonesia Alluvial. Flat
Bury 19.1 (85)
Source 1: Soon and Hoong (2002) 2: Kwan (2002) 3: Azmi et al. (2002) 4: Lim et al.
(2003) 5: Manjit et al (2002)

Table 12: Effect of synthetic mulch on the growth of 12 months old palms at PPPTR
research station

Treatment Frond production Frond dry weight Leaf area (m2)

(kg)
Value % Value % Value %
No mulch 12.96 100 9.17 100 1.06 100
FELDA Mulch 4’x4’ 12.86 99 9.24 102 1.12 105
FELDA Mulch 6’x8’ 14.53 112 11.22 122 1.35 127
AA+ plastic mulch 8’x8’ 14.50 112 11.61 127 1.22 115
LSD 5% 1.51 2.07 0.36
Significant difference * * n.s.
Source: Lee et al. (2008)
Note: AA+ plastic mulch was cut to sub-optimal size for comparison with Felda
mulch. The optimum size of AA+ plastic mulch is

6
Table 13: Effect of uneven fertilizer applications on the early yields (8 months of
crop) of six years old oil palm in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Source: Goh et al.
(1999)

Parameters Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Mean

Bunch production 1518 2305 2843 2222
(per ha )
C.V. % 16.2 10.0 3.7 -
FFB 4.03 8.69 13.20 8.64
(per ha )
C.V. 23.9 27.2 14.8 -
Estimated FFB 9.9 18.5 25.5 17.97
(per ha per yr)

Note: Each block consisted of 84 palms (7 replicates x 12 palms/replicate).

Block 1 – palms furthest away from roadside (Row 11 to Row 15)
Block 2 – palms second furthest away from roadside (Row 6 to Row 10)
Block 3 – palms nearest to roadside (Row 1 to Row 5)

Table 14: Nutrient balance computations for commercial areas. Source: Chew et al.
(1994b)

Commercial Soil series % N balance % K balance

areas
1 Tavy -32.5 +1.0
2 Munchong -38.6 -6.7
3 Tavy/Gajah Mati -27.8 +8.3
4 Prang/Local Alluvium -39.1 -0.3
5 Munchong/Tavy -36.3 -1.9
6 Bungor/Batu Lapan -30.7 +1.0
7 Munchong/Rasau -35.8 +4.5
8 Munchong/Holyrood -37.1 -0.9
9 Munchong -32.7 +14.2