Standards are the basis for enterprises to organize production and business activities, and they are the basis for companies to implement scientific management. However, in the past few years, in the market supervision and inspection, individual compound fertilizer production enterprises were found to not strictly follow the standards to produce, operate, and improve product quality. Instead, they used standards to evade quality supervision, produce unqualified chemical fertilizers, and even fake and deteriorating fertilizers. This is a new trend in the current quality of chemical fertilizers and deserves the attention of all parties. The problems in the production of compound fertilizer mainly include the following points:
First, try to drill the national standard Kongzi. Although the state has promulgated a mandatory standard for compound (mixed) fertilizers (GB15063-2001), the standard states that as long as “chlorine-containing†is marked on the packaging bag, the project may not be inspected. Therefore, individual lawbreakers must be allowed to use the inferior raw materials containing chlorine to produce compound fertilizer, and submerge the word “chlorine-containing†in the pattern of fruits and vegetables or mark the corners that are difficult to find. Make it difficult for farmers to discover at the time of purchase. In recent years, the output of crops has been reduced due to the excessive chloride ion content, and fruit crops, fruit drop, and even dead crops have often occurred everywhere. According to the report, in the fourth quarter of 2003, the qualified rate of supervision and inspection of compound fertilizers by a provincial quality supervision bureau was only 59.2%. Unqualified items, in addition to water content, exceeded the standard for chloride ions. Another example is that in 2003 a farmer in a village in Lacey used a brand of “potassium sulfate compound fertilizer†in the vineyard, resulting in a 3/4 reduction in the production of grapes in the village. The loss amounted to more than 600,000 yuan. The farmer found that the fertilizer was tested after being sampled. Chloride ion content up to 13%.
Second, it is intended to formulate and use corporate standards that are lower than the national standards. The national compound (mixed) fertilizer standard requires that the total nutrient content of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium be ≥25%, and the state encourages enterprises to formulate enterprise standards that are higher than national standards, industry standards, and local standards to organize production. However, in routine law enforcement inspections, it was found that individual compound fertilizer production enterprises did not use national standards or industry standards in order to evade quality supervision and inspection. Instead, they deliberately formulated and used enterprise standards that were lower than the national standards to produce compound fertilizers, and the enterprise standards were not standardized. Quality indicators are confusing. For example, a case we investigated in 2004: After sampling the compound fertilizer produced by an enterprise, it was sent to a statutory inspection agency for inspection according to national standards. The total nutrient content was less than 20%, and the product was judged as unqualified. However, the enterprise legal person claimed that its products were produced according to corporate standards and should be tested in accordance with corporate standards. After re-testing according to the company's standards, the total nutrient content was 26.1%. Originally, the company used a test method to oxidize the phosphorus element in the ore that has not reacted in the chemical fertilizer with strong acid (the technical indicator includes the insoluble form of the component). The surface seems to be qualified, but it is unqualified because There can be no strong acid in the soil. Farmers spent "25%" of their money, bought back "20%" of their products, spent money without saying it, and also affected crop yields.
Third, under the banner of new products, set the so-called new product standards. At present, there are a wide variety of fertilizers on the market, and there are an endless variety of chemical fertilizers emerging from the face of new products and high-tech products. Such as "silicon, calcium, magnesium, potash," "magnesium sulfate fertilizer," "all-element fertilizer," "nano-fertilizer," "coated urea," "humic acid, urea," and so on. Due to the incompleteness of the new national or industry standard system for fertilizers and the implementation of corporate standards for various products, there is a big difference between the quality indicators of different companies, which has caused a chaos in the fertilizer market. For example, in the spring of this year, “Farming Aids to the Countryside†had investigated a chemical fertilizer named “Calcium Sulfate†produced by a company using phosphogypsum as a raw material. After investigation, there are no national standards and industry standards for such fertilizers. The main quality indicators of the enterprise standards set by the enterprises are: sulfur trioxide (SO3) ≥ 35%, calcium oxide (CaO) ≥ 25%, free acid (calculated as P2O5) ≤5.5%. Statutory samples are sent to the statutory inspection agencies in accordance with the law, and they are tested according to the company's standards. The results are in compliance with corporate standards, cannot be investigated, and can only be released and allowed to be sold. However, according to relevant professionals, phosphogypsum is a residue produced by large-scale fertilizer companies for the production of phosphoric acid. It is a production waste that is difficult for enterprises to handle. Using it as a fertilizer not only has no effect on crops, but also causes soil compaction. It is a serious pit farmer. Harmful to agriculture.
First, try to drill the national standard Kongzi. Although the state has promulgated a mandatory standard for compound (mixed) fertilizers (GB15063-2001), the standard states that as long as “chlorine-containing†is marked on the packaging bag, the project may not be inspected. Therefore, individual lawbreakers must be allowed to use the inferior raw materials containing chlorine to produce compound fertilizer, and submerge the word “chlorine-containing†in the pattern of fruits and vegetables or mark the corners that are difficult to find. Make it difficult for farmers to discover at the time of purchase. In recent years, the output of crops has been reduced due to the excessive chloride ion content, and fruit crops, fruit drop, and even dead crops have often occurred everywhere. According to the report, in the fourth quarter of 2003, the qualified rate of supervision and inspection of compound fertilizers by a provincial quality supervision bureau was only 59.2%. Unqualified items, in addition to water content, exceeded the standard for chloride ions. Another example is that in 2003 a farmer in a village in Lacey used a brand of “potassium sulfate compound fertilizer†in the vineyard, resulting in a 3/4 reduction in the production of grapes in the village. The loss amounted to more than 600,000 yuan. The farmer found that the fertilizer was tested after being sampled. Chloride ion content up to 13%.
Second, it is intended to formulate and use corporate standards that are lower than the national standards. The national compound (mixed) fertilizer standard requires that the total nutrient content of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium be ≥25%, and the state encourages enterprises to formulate enterprise standards that are higher than national standards, industry standards, and local standards to organize production. However, in routine law enforcement inspections, it was found that individual compound fertilizer production enterprises did not use national standards or industry standards in order to evade quality supervision and inspection. Instead, they deliberately formulated and used enterprise standards that were lower than the national standards to produce compound fertilizers, and the enterprise standards were not standardized. Quality indicators are confusing. For example, a case we investigated in 2004: After sampling the compound fertilizer produced by an enterprise, it was sent to a statutory inspection agency for inspection according to national standards. The total nutrient content was less than 20%, and the product was judged as unqualified. However, the enterprise legal person claimed that its products were produced according to corporate standards and should be tested in accordance with corporate standards. After re-testing according to the company's standards, the total nutrient content was 26.1%. Originally, the company used a test method to oxidize the phosphorus element in the ore that has not reacted in the chemical fertilizer with strong acid (the technical indicator includes the insoluble form of the component). The surface seems to be qualified, but it is unqualified because There can be no strong acid in the soil. Farmers spent "25%" of their money, bought back "20%" of their products, spent money without saying it, and also affected crop yields.
Third, under the banner of new products, set the so-called new product standards. At present, there are a wide variety of fertilizers on the market, and there are an endless variety of chemical fertilizers emerging from the face of new products and high-tech products. Such as "silicon, calcium, magnesium, potash," "magnesium sulfate fertilizer," "all-element fertilizer," "nano-fertilizer," "coated urea," "humic acid, urea," and so on. Due to the incompleteness of the new national or industry standard system for fertilizers and the implementation of corporate standards for various products, there is a big difference between the quality indicators of different companies, which has caused a chaos in the fertilizer market. For example, in the spring of this year, “Farming Aids to the Countryside†had investigated a chemical fertilizer named “Calcium Sulfate†produced by a company using phosphogypsum as a raw material. After investigation, there are no national standards and industry standards for such fertilizers. The main quality indicators of the enterprise standards set by the enterprises are: sulfur trioxide (SO3) ≥ 35%, calcium oxide (CaO) ≥ 25%, free acid (calculated as P2O5) ≤5.5%. Statutory samples are sent to the statutory inspection agencies in accordance with the law, and they are tested according to the company's standards. The results are in compliance with corporate standards, cannot be investigated, and can only be released and allowed to be sold. However, according to relevant professionals, phosphogypsum is a residue produced by large-scale fertilizer companies for the production of phosphoric acid. It is a production waste that is difficult for enterprises to handle. Using it as a fertilizer not only has no effect on crops, but also causes soil compaction. It is a serious pit farmer. Harmful to agriculture.
Jiangsu Zhongcan Marine Equipment Co.,Ltd. , https://www.anchorchainzc.com