Research Field Days 2015

Nitrogen Placement Comparison in Corn South Dakota Ag Research. Lesterville, SD

Experiment Info aaaaaa

Planted: 6/11
Variety: DKC49-29
Population: 26,000
Row Spacing: 30”
Previous Crop: Corn
Plot Size: 4 rows x 10’
Replications: 4
Sidedress: 11/8
Harvested: 11/8

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 6.4
CEC: 16.8
% OM: 3.1
Bray P1: 10
K: 136
S: 13
% K: 2
% Mg: 27.3
% Ca: 63.4
% H: 7.3
Zn: 0.4
Mn: 15.6
B: 0.3

Objective

Compare placement of different nitrogen sources for effect on corn yield. Application of nitrogen to corn can be a challenge. What is the best method of application? Some growers apply all of their solution nitrogen as a single application after planting as in weed and feed. Side dress is a common application method, but there too are options: inject into the soil or apply in a surface band? An experiment was conducted in South Dakota to provide some answers to these placement options. The spring was very wet and planting was delayed. In fact, the intended location was never able to be planted, and a second location was selected. However, this was corn in 2012, and all nitrogen application at sidedress is not a good option for corn following corn due to N depletion in the soil and danger of further yield loss if sidedress is delayed by weather. But due to the drought in 2012, soil test determined that there was 51 lb of N available to the crop in the spring. An N application rate of 140 lb/A was set. Three UAN sources were selected for comparison: 46 gal/A of 28% UAN, 33 gal/A of High NRG-N and 28 gal/A of High NRG-N. Stream nozzles were selected due to the corn stalks and residue. Applications were broadcast with stream nozzles after planting, sidedress with soil injection, and sidedress with a narrow surface band. All plots received 4 gal/A of Pro-Germinator + 2 gal/A of Sure-K + 1 qt/A of Micro 500 applied in-furrow at planting. Ample rain fell following the broadcast application, and rain fell within a week of the sidedress application. Yield results appear in the chart.

Conclusions

• Yield patterns were similar for all three N sources. Highest yield was with the broadcast application followed closely by the sidedress (SD) injected treatment. Lowest was with the surface dribble band. Ample rain likely influenced results. Will see about a repeat.

Planter Fertilizer Comparisons in Irrigated Corn Real Farm Research. Aurora, NE

Experiment Info 2013

Planted: 5/6
Variety: DKC 63-84
Population: 32,000
Row Spacing: 30”
Previous Crop: Soybeans
Plot Size: 4 rows x 153’
Replications: 2
PRE: 4/29
Harvest: 10/27

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 7.1
CEC: 25
% OM: 3.3
Bray P1: 33
K: 406
S: 20
% K: 4.2
% Mg: 8
% Ca: 88
% H: 0
Zn: 1.55
Mn: 87.3

Objective

Compare several planter applied fertilizer options for effect on yield of irrigated corn. In this part of South Central Nebraska, a typical corn fertilizer program is a fall application of 200 lb-N per acre and then 5 gal/A of 10-34-0 applied in the seed furrow at planting. This experiment compared several planter-applied fertilizer applications in comparison to no planter fertilizer. They included the standard 5 gal/A of 10-34-0, a half rate of Pro-Germinator + Micro 500, that treatment with the sulfur fertilizer eNhance, and then this combination but with 5 gal/A of Pro-Germinator. The soil test P is high at 33 ppm as is the soil test S at 20 ppm. But yield expectations are high with this furrow-irrigated corn. Yield results appear in the chart.

Conclusions

• All planter fertilizer treatments yielded significantly higher than the no planter fertilizer treatment. (At the 0.2 level of probability).

• The highest yielding treatment was the higher rate of Pro-Germinator with Micro 500 and eNhance. But there was no statistically significant difference between the planter treatments.

• Numerically there was a yield increase with the addition of eNhance, which is a good way to add sulfur fertilizer.

Fertilizer Program Comparison in Spring Wheat Northern Plains Ag Research. Gardner, ND

Experiment Info 13-308

Planted: 5/15
Variety: Prosper
Population: 90 lbs
Row Spacing: 7.5”
Previous Crop: Wheat
Plot Size: 10’ x 35’
Replications: 4
PPI: 5/14
Harvest: 10/11

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 7.2
CEC: 17
% OM: 2.5
Bicarb P: 7
K: 375
S: 5.5
% K: 5.6
% Mg: 20.2
% Ca: 73
% H: 0
% Na: 1.2
Zn: 0.5
Mn: 4
B: 0.5

Objective

Compare different fertilizer sources of P and N for effect on spring wheat grain yield and protein. The previous experiment on spring wheat evaluated different N programs for spring wheat and found advantage with the addition of eNhance to 28% UAN as well as the addition of sulfur from accesS. As part of that experiment, conventional fertilizers were evaluated for effect on wheat yield and protein compared to an AgroLiquid program. Conventional sources were 10-34-0 + 28% UAN and MAP (monoammonium phosphate, 11-52-0) + urea (46-0-0). These materials were applied pre-plant and soil incorporated. The liquid treatments were applied with
stream nozzles. A nutrient application of 80-40-0 was followed for all treatments. Treatment yields appear in the following chart.

Conclusions

• Highest average yield was with the AgroLiquid program. However the dry program had the highest grain protein although with a lower average yield. Conventional liquid yield lower in yield and protein.

• It was shown in the previous report covering the nitrogen comparisons that addition of accesS to the AgroLiquid treatment listed here increased yield to 56.5 Bu/A and 14.2% grain protein. This shows the importance of sulfur. However there was no sulfur with this dry treatment. But addition of sulfur to the AgroLiquid treatment resulted in a yield that is 8.8 Bu/A higher than this dry treatment.

• It is important to consider the entire nutrient need of the crop.

Effect of N Solutions on Spring Wheat Yield and Protein. Northern Plains Ag Research. Gardner, ND

Experiment Info 13-308

Planted: 5/15
Variety: Prosper
Population: 90 lbs
Row Spacing: 7.5”
Previous Crop: Wheat
Plot Size: 10’ x 35’
Replications: 4
PPI: 5/14
Harvest: 10/11

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 7.2
CEC: 17
% OM: 2.5
Bicarb P: 7
K: 375
S: 5.5
% K: 5.6
% Mg: 20.2
% Ca: 73
% H: 0
% Na: 1.2
Zn: 0.5
Mn: 4
B: 0.5

Objective

Evaluate the effects of different nitrogen solutions on yield and protein levels of spring wheat. For spring wheat, solution nitrogen is often applied prior to planting and worked into the soil. In this experiment, a target N rate of 80 lb/A was selected. This may be lower than is normally recommended, but previous research at this location has not shown a yield response to higher rates such as 100 lb-N/A. The treatments consisted of three rates/A of 28% with eNhance: the target 80 lb-N, the higher 100 lb-N, and a lower rate of 64 lb-N. High NRG-N was applied at the 70% N rate, or 18 gal/A for 56 lb-N/A. Straight 28% UAN served as the conventional standard at 80 lb-N/A. The final treatment evaluated the effects of addition of the 17% sulfur fertilizer accesS to 28% with eNhance. All treatments were combined with 4 gal/A of Pro-Germinator + 1 qt/A of Micro 500. This treatment provided 4 lb-N/A, to bring the total N rate to the rates indicated. Following harvest, samples from each plot were analyzed for % protein. The yields and protein levels appear in the following chart.

Conclusions:

• Apparently the selection of 80 lb-N/A was the proper choice as the yield with 100 lb-N/A with 28%/eNhance was essentially the same as that of the 80 lb-N/A rate. But there was a significant yield drop when the rate was decreased to 64 lb-N/A.

• The 80 lb-N/A rate of 28%/eNhance was higher in yield and protein than that with the same rate of 28% without eNhance. The yield produced with an application of 80% of N, or 64
lb-N/A with 28%/eNhance was close to that of the conventional 80 lb-N/rate.

• Yield with High NRG-N was lower than expected, perhaps due to soil incorporation which favored performance of the other N source. (Reduced opportunity for volatility loss.)

• Addition of accesS sulfur to the full rate of 28%/eNhance resulted in the highest yield, as well as the highest protein level. It was the only treatment to surpass the target 14% level.

Nitrogen Application Options in Dryland Cotton R&D Research Farm. Washington, LA

Experiment Info 13-308

Planted: 5/2
Variety: Phy565WRF
Population: 40,000
Row Spacing: 38”
Previous Crop: Soybeans
Plot Size: 4 rows x 30’
Replications: 4
PPI.: 5/21
Sidedress: 6/28
Foliar: 8/15
Harvest: 10/10

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 6.6
CEC: 10.4
% OM: 1.7
Bray P1: 37
K: 92
S: 7
% K: 2.1
% Mg: 29.3
% Ca: 60.9
% H: 6
% Na: 1.8
Zn: 1.1
Mn: 30
B: 1

Objective:

Evaluate different N applications to determine the best product combination for best yield. It may be possible to influence crop yield by application of different nitrogen sources at different times to take advantage of different N source characteristics. High NRG-N is formulated to reduce N losses by reducing volatility and leaching. It is also formulated to release usable nitrogen over an extended period of time compared to other N sources. Thus, it may be a good source of N early in the season to feed over a longer time, but maybe not so much when applied later in the season when crop N demand is more for fast acting nitrogen. The N additive eNhance is formulated to enhance nitrogen uptake and translocation while offering some protection from losses, but does not enable controlled release. This experiment evaluated N applications for cotton using High NRG-N and 32% UAN with eNhance. Treatments were split where 6 gal/A was applied pre-plant broadcast and incorporated. Another 14 gallons was knifed into the soil at sidedress 37 days after planting when the cotton was 4 inches tall. So one treatment had High NRG-N at both applications, a second had High NRG-N at the first application and 32%/eNhance at the second application, and the third had 32%/eNhance at both applications. Both High NRG-N and 32%/eNhance have similar use rates based on
equivalency. Yield results appear in the chart.

Conclusions:

• The highest lint yield was where High NRG-N was applied in the first application and 32%/eNhance was applied at the second application. This trend has also been observed in corn at the NCRS, suggesting that proper timing of the correct N source may have an advantage. Although admittedly, it may be an inconvenience handling two N sources, it interesting from a research standpoint.

 

Liquid Nitrogen Comparisons in DNS Wheat Hubbard Ag Science. Moscow, ID

Experiment Info: 13-308

Planted: 5/2
Variety: Bullseye
Population: 85 lbs
Row Spacing: 7.5”
Plot Size: 8’ x 35’
Replications: 4
PPI.: 5/1
Harvest: 9/18

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 5.6
CEC: 16.9
% OM: 3.1
Bray P1: 20
K: 676
S: 8
% K: 10.2
Zn: 0.8
Mn: 26

Objective:

Compare different nitrogen sources and sulfur additives for effects on yield of DNS spring wheat. One option for nitrogen application to spring wheat is to “shank” it in with a tillage tool. Such was the case for treatment application in this experiment evaluating several different solution N sources and some sulfur additives for effect on yield. Treatments were applied through tubes on the shanks of a field cultivator such that final band spacing was six inches apart and approximately six inches deep. The N sources were 32% UAN, 32% UAN with eNhance, and aqua ammonia (20-0-0, 1.5 lb-N/gal). Additives tested for sulfur were S-Calate (14% S and 1% Ca), accesS (17% S plus iron, manganese, zinc), eNhance (8.75% S plus manganese and zinc) and ammonium thio-sulfate (or ATS: 12-0-0-26S). The target N rate was 90 lb/A. Yield results appear in the following chart.

Conclusions:

• There was a step-wise increase in yield over straight 32% UAN with the additions of eNhance, S-Calate, and then both eNhance and S-Calate, which resulted in the highest yield in the experiment.

• Reducing the rate of 32% UAN from 26 to 21 gal/A with additives eNhance and • S-Calate still resulted in a significantly higher yield than the higher rate of 32% UAN with no additives (88.5 Bu/A vs. 76.8 Bu/A).

• Addition of accesS to straight 32% UAN resulted in a significant yield increase, where ATS increased yield, but not statistically higher.

• The addition of eNhance (37 fluid oz/A) to aqua ammonia resulted in an unexplained yield reduction. Have not had much success with addition of eNhance to aqua in the past.

Long Term Sugarbeet Fertilizer Program Comparisons

Experiment Info 201313-707

Planted: 5/6
Variety: Crystal RR827
Population: 43,000
Row Spacing: 30”
Previous Crop: W. Wheat
Plot Size: 15’ x 265’
Replications: 4
Potash: Fall 2012
PPI: 5/7
PRE: 5/7
Harvested: 10/30

Soil Test Values (ppm)

pH: 6.9
CEC: 9.5
% OM: 2.1
Bray P1: 10
K: 112
S: 7
% K: 3.0
% Mg: 19.5
% Ca: 77.2
% H: 0
% Na: 0.3
Zn: 1.5
Mn: 10
B: 0.5

Objective

To observe the comparison between a conventional dry program and a complete AgroLiquid program. Long term averages are a great way to see how fertilizer programs affect yields. By averaging yield results over several years it takes into account different soil types that the experiments were conducted on and the different weather conditions that exist from year to year. Each year all Agro-Culture Liquid Fertilizer programs placed phosphorus, potassium and micro nutrients in a 2×2 band with the planter. High NRG-N was used as the nitrogen source and applied as a surface broadcast after planting. Conventional programs placed phosphorus as DAP (dry spread) or 10-34-0 (2×2) and potassium as potash along with micro nutrients as a broadcast spread and tilled into the soil ahead of planting. Urea (applied the same as other dry materials) or 28% UAN (broadcast after planting) was used as the nitrogen source. All programs matched fertility needs of the test area for that particular year. The North Central Research Station uses a Gandy Orbit Air spreader to accurately spread dry materials across the entire 15’ plot width. (Note: Prior to 2007 the above planter 2×2 applications were applied 1 inch to the side of the seed and at an even depth.)

Conclusions

• Over 9 years, there has been an average 1 Ton/A yield advantage using Agro-Culture Liquid Fertilizers compared to a conventional fertilizer program.

• AgroLiquid nutrients provide all of the necessary nutrition needed for a great sugarbeet crop.