Protein and Yield Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer and Variation of Plant Tissue Analysis in Wheat
|
|
- Nelson Potter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Protein and Yield Response to Nitrogen Fertilizer and Variation of Plant Tissue Analysis in Wheat Daniel Kaiser, Dept. of Soil, Water and Climate, U of M, St. Paul Research Questions The current N management guidelines recommend applying nitrogen based on the yield goal of wheat minus any N credits from a previous crop or from soil nitrate. This recommendation has served wheat growers for many years and is constant no matter where you are in the Red River Valley. For southern Minnesota table values are recommended for wheat because soil nitrate does not play as big of a role in recommendations. The idea of single sets of recommendations for large areas of the state are coming into question as farmers have adopted more precision agriculture technologies and have the ability to apply variable rates of crop inputs across fields and can collect yield data from individual field areas. In order to provide the information to make these recommendations data must be collected from multiple locations, especially if researchers want to better provide farmers with data that may provide differences between specific regions even within the larger regions within the state. Plant tissue analysis has become more increasingly offered to wheat and other crop growers as a way to assess the nutrient status within the plant at a particular time that may ultimately be related back to yield. Crop uptake generally follows a consistent pattern; however, nutrients vary in when they are taken up and where they may go in the plant. Therefore, if environmental conditions exist that may limit uptake certain elements may be deficient in some areas of the plant. For example, elements such as sulfur or zinc are taken up into the plant and are not remobilized into other plant tissues if the supply in the soil becomes low. Therefore, plant tissue analysis can be problematic and may not accurately reflect yield at the end of the season if the cause of the temporary deficiency is corrected. Also, varieties may differ in their growth patterns ultimately affecting crop uptake of nutrients and the concentrations in plant tissues. Therefore, particular normal values may be only normal for particular varieties in specific locations rather than a one size fits all number for a tissue concentration. No recent work has been published that shows variety to variety variation across locations. Therefore work should be undertaken to provide farmers with an idea of what their tissue analysis really means. The objectives of this study are to: 1) Study protein and yield response using nitrogen rate trials in Northern and Southern Minnesota 2) Evaluate economic optimum nitrogen rates for spring wheat Page 52 3) Evaluate the variability in plant tissue collected from the fully extended flag leaves 4) Compare variability in nutrient composition of plant tissue for spring wheat between varieties and locations in well fertilized trials. Results Nitrogen Rate Studies A summary of the locations studies are included in Table 1 and 2. Three locations were studies in northwestern Minnesota, one near, one at Crookson, and one near. Two locations were studied in southern Minnesota at and. Soil P and K levels were adequate for wheat (Table 1) for the Northern trials and were Low to Very Low in the southern studies. The two foot soil test N levels ranged from 34 to 88 lbs. of N per acre. A summary of grain yield data (adjusted to 13.5% moisture) is given in table 3. Grain yields were significantly increased by nitrogen application at all locations except for. Yield was maximized by 127 lbs of N at Crookston, 98 lbs at, 85 lbs at, and 15 lbs at. The actual yield increase was the greatest at the two northern locations averaging 2 bu/ac while the southern locations average only on average of 1. Table 4 summarizes yield data, estimated N need based on 2.5 x yield goal minus N credits, and an analysis of economic optimum nitrogen rates (EONR) that are needed to maximize grain yield only at individual locations. The predicted N need was greater than the actual need at Fergus Falls and, but was less than the actual predicted need at the other location. The predicted need and the actual need were close at most locations but differed greatly at and. The higher predicted need makes sense due to the fact that the amount of N needed to maximize yield is less than the amount of N needed to maximize yield and protein concentration. The predicted economic optimum N rate for yield varied by location. In most circumstances the ratio of the price per lb N to dollars per bu wheat should fall around the.15 price ratio or less. Since there was not a large response to N at most locations there was large difference in the amount of N recommended based on the economic model. Since the increase in yield per lb. of N was consistent across N rates (linear response) at, the agronomic optimum N rate will be the same at the EONR value as long as long as the change in yield per lb N is less than the price ratio used. For the location, the change was equal to.5 bu per lb of additional N
2 which was below the ratios listed in the table. Therefore, the EONR value would likely be at this location. Grain protein was influenced by one or more nitrogen treatments at all locations except for. A linear model was fit to the data at, but the data was curvilinear at Crookston,, and and was maximized by 26, 225, and 88 lbs of N at the three locations, respectively. It took more N to maximize protein concentration than for yield at Crookston,, and while it took less at and. While the N rate never maximized protein at the amount needed to get to 14% was between 3 and 6 lbs of N. The amount needed to reach 14% was higher at Crookston, but the remaining sites averaged 14% protein concentration or higher with no or a low rate of N. Table 6 summarizes economic optimum nitrogen rates (EONR) for two price rations ($/lb. of N: $/bu. wheat price) adjusted by various protein discounts. This data combines data collected from 28 to 212 from a study previously funded by the Minnesota Fertilizer Research and Education Council and was collected from sites in northwest Minnesota. The variety at all locations was until 212 when was seeded at the northern locations. Figure 1 shows sample calculations for this data based on the.1 price ratio for northern locations while southern locations are summarized in Figure 2. Since protein discounts can have a significant impact on the net return per acre and the varieties used in the northern study were high yielding but moderate protein varieties, the calculated MRTN (maximum return to nitrogen: amount of N needed to return a dollar in crop value for a dollar spent on fertilizer N) value tended to increase. The biggest jumps in the MRTN value were when the discount levels were either or $.1 per fifth. In the table the low and high values represent plus or minus a dollar from the MRTN value and are considered a flexible range where a producer can select what to apply based many factors related to the field, environment, or perceived risk. The data shows that a high amount of N, 21 lbs., was needed to maximize yields when discounts were high, at the.1 price ratio, and were at 171 lbs of N for the.15 ratio. This is in sharp contrast to current recommendations. This is some caution in the data because this is a fairly limited data set in terms of the number of locations and years. Analysis for individual years or areas of the state might yield some differences in the calculated MRTN values. In addition all locations included spring applied urea that was incorporated soon after application which may affect the data compared with fall applied anhydrous ammonia. The data for southern Minnesota is given in Table 7. Discounts were not considered for the southern Minnesota data since protein concentrations were at or above 14% at nearly all locations when N was not applied. At the.1 price ratio rate of N that returned the maximum economic value (MRTN) was 143 lbs of N while 116 lbs was the MRTN value for the.15 price ratio. It should be noted that the 2 foot soil nitrate test was included in this analysis. Therefore the total amount of N determined with the test would need to be subtracted from this level to determine how much fertilizer N to apply. All samples were collected in the spring prior to seeding and appeared to give the best idea of total N requirements across the locations in both southern and northern Minnesota. Plant sampling study Plant sampling has increasingly been used in order to determine hidden nutrient deficiency symptoms in crops. In this study we sampled 15 varieties from the on-farm variety plots to compared the nutrient levels in flag leaf tissue. The variety trials were selected because they are managed with fertility as a non-limiting factor. For all sites a single sampling date was selected even though some varieties did vary in their maturity level at sampling. A single composite soil sample was collected from each location at the time of sampling. Soil data is given in Table 8 for macronutrients and Table 9 for micronutrients. A number of tests were run for both macro- and micro-nutrients. In most cases K levels were adequate for crop growth. The exceptions were 211 and and in 213, which tested Medium. Soil test levels at,, and in 211 and in 212 tested Low in P while all other sites were Medium or higher. However, fertilizer should have been applied to take care of any nutrient deficiencies. Soil test K was the lowest at however there should have been adequate K based on current recommendations. There are no suggested optimum soil test levels for calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, manganese, and boron for Minnesota. Recommendations are made for sandy soils with low organic matter content for sulfate sulfur. However, no sites fit that description even though soils had a coarser texture at the and locations. Soil organic matter concentrations at these locations should have been high enough to mineralize enough plant available sulfur. In the case of copper a soil test between 2.5 and 5. ppm is considered marginal on organic soils. In this case we were not dealing with any organic soils so the same range would not hold and in fact all of the soil test values came in at or below this level. We do not expect a significant chance of a positive yield increase due to copper fertilization at any of the sites studied. It is not impossible to see a deficiency since small grains tend to be sensitive to copper deficiency. Table 1 summarizes the significance of each individual main treatment effects, site and variety, and their interaction. Part of the purpose of this study was to determine if 1) varieties significantly differed in their tissue concentration and 2) if the differences were similar across sites. We continued on page 54 Page 53
3 would expect site averages to differ due to differences in environmental conditions, soil types, fertilizer rates, or management practices. For all nutrients the effect of site was significant, except for tissue Iron concentration. The effect of variety was highly significant for all nutrients except for zinc and iron. The effect of zinc was marginally significant but still failed to reach significance at the accepted level (P<.5). A summary of tissue concentration for each variety is given in Figures 3 and 4 in the Appendix. A review of the literature found very few published sufficiency values for the time of sampling that was done in this work. A summary of values given by the University of Kentucky extension is given in Table 11 and follows somewhat closely to values given by Agvise labs to their customers. Most data found were for analysis of whole plant samples not individual flag leaves. Using this data the concentration data can be compared to determine if any of the median values for the varieties were sufficient. Median values were sufficient for all varieties for P, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Cu, Fe, and B concentration. Potassium was consistently low across hybrids with the Median value testing lower than everything else for. In the case of N, Zn, and Cl, tissue concentrations were at the low end of the sufficient range and into the low range. Plant nutrient concentration summaries by location are given in Figures 5 through 8. Calcium, Mg, Fe, and B levels were all in the sufficient range across locations. Flag leaf N concentration was in the low range at 9 of the locations. For the remaining 8 locations median values were sufficient but on the low end of the range. Phosphorus was considered low only at in 212 while K was low at all locations except for in 212. Sulfur concentration was mostly sufficient except for Fergus Fall and in 211 and in 212 which were sufficient to low. Zinc concentration was borderline low at all locations except for 212. Manganese was sufficient except for Humboldt in 211 and during both years. Copper was low at 211 and sufficient to border line low at 211. Chlorine was sufficient to low at Fergus Falls 211 and 212. Median Cl levels were considered low at and during both years of the study and and in 211. When considering yield there was little correlation across locations and hybrids with any of the tissue concentrations (Table 12). The greatest correlation was between Cl concentration and yield. However, when regressed there was very little predictability of chlorine concentration on final yield. Grain protein was not significantly related to any of the plant tissue concentrations except for Cl which was negatively correlated to yield. Individual correlations within location are given in Table 13 for grain yield and Table 14 for grain protein. The best correlation was with most of the macronutrients (N, P, Ca, Mg, and S) at in 211. While many factors can be considered significant there level of significance was not high for most concentrations at most locations. There were several significant negative correlations within locations. For instance, K concentration at Humboldt in 211 was negatively correlated with yield. In terms of protein we were interested whether there was any relationship with N at any of the locations. Only one location showed a highly significant correlation between N and protein, in 211 while two locations, 211 and 212 and 212, showed moderate significance. Another element that has been questioned to effect protein is S. However, there was no evidence of a positive effect of S on grain protein concentration. Overall, there is no evidence of a clear single predictor of yield at any location. The average values for each nutrient concentration were compared to soil test values taken at the time of sample and there was no clear relationship between soil test values and tissue nutrient concentration (Table 15). The best relationship was between tissue S concentration and soil test sulfate. However, there was no indication that S was low at any location. Significant main treatment interactions for most nutrients may indicate that the lines do not always vary the same way at all locations or that the effect of line may only be significant at some of the locations. There was only a significant interaction for all the macronutrients and half of the micronutrients. There was no evidence of a location and variety interaction for Zn, Fe, and Cu. Since there was a lot of variation in the effects between locations an analysis was conducted on ranks to simplify the data. Rank data across locations for macronutrients, grain yield, and grain protein concentration are given in Table 16. There was no variety that consistently ranked high or low for all macronutrients. For instance, generally ranked among the highest varieties for N and Mg concentration but among the lowest for K. While was among the lowest for N and P, but in the middle for K, Ca, Mg, and S. In the case of micronutrient concentration, ranked among the highest for Zn and Mn, but low for Fe, Cu, B, and Cl. The lack of consistency across all nutrients indicate that the effect of variety is somewhat random across locations and which indicate that separate sufficiency levels would not be required for different varieties. If some varieties were consistently low or high then separate levels may be warranted. In addition, the somewhat random differences between locations indicate that factors other than the measured soil test values, which include environmental stresses, are likely more important in determining why differences may occur between locations. If sufficiency rates need to be determined separate fertility trials with multiple nutrient rates are needed. We were curious if some varieties would show larger differences in certain nutrient concentration. Other than the K difference seen with, there was no evidence that variety would play a significant enough difference to affect results. It should be cautioned that since all Page 54
4 samples were taken at the same time the difference could be due to differences in maturity of the crop. Application/Use The nitrogen rate data when combined with previous work shows that in many cases N rates applied based on historical yield goals likely will not limit yields when yield potential is high but will limit protein. Economic data shows that limiting protein can have a significant impact on economics within a field, especially with a variety that does not have a high genetic protein potential. In order to maximize profit more N likely needs to be applied. However, using the current recommendations if the yield goal can be accurately predicted within a given year the current recommendation of 2.5 x yield goal minus N credits may be used. The biggest challenge to wheat growers is accurately predicting yield goals. In addition, there are justifiable concerns for yield loss due to lodging from the over-application of N. The risk of over- or under application of N needs to be weighed before making the decision on how much to apply, which could hinge on what variety is planted within a field. The plant analysis data can be important in that it can tell us how much variability in tissue concentration we can expect based on sites and varieties. Since we do not have specific fertilizer rates we cannot fully determine optimum concentrations with this data. Yields can be used in order to determine if there is a link between yield and concentration, but since yield potentials varied significantly by location it can be difficult to determine relationships across locations. Since we are dealing with varieties, there is also some yield differences inherent between varieties which can make it difficult to determine if the difference in achieved yield is related to the tissue concentration or is just inherent in the particular variety. Some cautions should be taken when looking at the plant tissue data. In particular, the data presents a particular concentration at a particular time in development. We know that tissue concentration can change significantly during a growing season therefore if a sample is taken it should be known when it was taken in order to compare back to a specific nutrient concentration at a specific time in development of the plant. As plants mature mobile nutrients, such as phosphorus, can be re-mobilized out of the flag leaf therefore tissue levels may decline over time. If samples are collected too late they may return erroneous information. That is why suggestions are made for a specific plant at a specific stage in development. Materials and Methods Nitrogen (N) rate studies: Small plot trials will be conducted at two to three locations in conjunction with the onfarm variety trials. Small plot studies replicated four times will include eight nitrogen rates starting at and ranging in 3 lb increments up to 21 lbs of N per acre. All nitrogen will be applied as broadcast urea incorporated prior to planting. Additional P, K, and S will be applied in order to make sure these nutrients will not limit yield or protein response. For trials in Northern Minnesota a single variety will be planted across locations. Yield will be determined after harvesting the entire plot with a small plot combine and protein will be determined with a NIR. Soil samples will be taken from -6 for P, K, ph and nitrate and nitrate only will be determined on 6-24 samples taken in northern Minnesota and 6-12 and samples collected from southern Minnesota locations. Yield data will be analyzed to determine the amount of nitrogen required to maximize agronomic yield as well as determine economic optimum nitrogen rates based on several combinations of the ratio of the price of N ($ per lb.) to the value of wheat ($ per bu.) and protein discount levels. Plant tissue survey: ed wheat varieties will be sampled at selected variety trial locations. A total of 17 locations were sampled over 211 and 212 with 8 locations sampled in 211 and 9 sampled in 212. The preferred sampling will be conducted at Feekes 9. (prior to boot) in which about 2-3 flag leaves will be sampled out of each plot. However, differences in maturities between varieties may give us a range in maturities at the time of sampling. This sampling is different from the recommended sampling of the whole plant but represents a common analysis being used by farmers. Samples will be dried at 65 o c, ground to pass through a 2mm sieve, and sent in a single batch and analyzed for nutrient concentration. Analysis was conducted for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, boron, and chlorine concentration. At the time of sampling a single composite soil sample was collected from each site (-6 depth) to characterize soil test levels at the sampling time for each location. This would reflect any fertilizer applied in the spring before wheat was seeded at each location. Statistical Analysis: All analysis was completed using SAS. For both studies and analysis of variance was conducted to determine if treatment effects were significant for each study. For the N rate trials, if the analysis indicated that the effect of nitrogen was significant that the yield or protein concentration was regressed with the N rate applied to fit a model to predict protein or yield respose to N at each location. To study effects across locations, the amount of nitrate nitrogen in the two foot soil test was included with the N rate applied and regressed against the yield for all N rate trials conducted from 28 to 212 for both northern and southern Minnesota locations. This data was used to determine the maximum return to nitrogen for several combinations of N price ratio ($ per lb N:$ per bu wheat) and continued on page 56 Page 55
5 discount levels ($ per fifth). The actual yield values for each location were used for the MRTN analysis but the protein data was estimated using the total lbs. of protein produced per acre. Initial analysis was conducted using average protein concentrations across locations but this tended to overestimate protein at low N rates. The current database includes 15 locations from northern Minnesota and 8 locations from southern Minnesota. For the plant analysis study an analysis of variance procedure was used to study the effects of location and variety and their interaction (whether the effects of variety differed by location of vice versa). If the analysis indicates a significant interaction between variety and location normally the effects of variety within individual locations would be further studied. Since our main question was whether nutrient concentrations were similar for varieties across locations we simplified our analysis to look at the relative ranking of varieties within location if there was evidence of a significant effect of variety from the initial analysis of variance. The varieties were ranked from 1 to 14 with 1 being the variety with the highest level and 14 being low. Only 14 varieties were used since the variety was not used both years. In 212 was sampled in place of but both could not be considered across all locations. In addition 1 location,, in 212 was not used since not all varieties were sampled due to some not being mature enough at the time. For the analysis variety means for the nutrient concentration as well as yield and protein concentration were ranked and these rankings were then analyzed using analysis of variance with the particular location being considered a single replication. If the effect of variety were significant it indicates that there are consistent differences across locations. An LSD procedure was used to separate out varieties into general groupings at the.3 probability level. Box and whisker plots are given to summarize concentrations by variety and location. The data within the box represents the median concentration value and the upper and lower lines represent the 25 th and 75 th quartile of the data. The whiskers represent the 1 th and 9 th quartile and any points outside represent high or low outlier values within the plots. The data was presented this way in order to show where the majority of the values occurred and give an idea of the range in values across all locations. Economic Benefit to a Typical 5 Acre Wheat Enterprise The direct benefit from the plant analysis study to a 5 acre operation is less clear that the direct benefit of the nitrogen study. However, if plant analysis is being used there likely will be some recommendation for a foliar application since it is likely that one or more nutrients will be considered deficient. With the variability we have been finding it is likely that one or more nutrients may be low due to environmental or other stresses. The lack of correlation with the soil test data indicates this since the values were generally sufficient. Soil testing should be the preferred option in order to make nutrient application decisions prior to seeding to ensure yield will likely not be limiting. In the nitrogen study, not hitting the correct rate can have significant impacts on profitability. For instance, if discount levels are high ($.2 per fifth), under-application of fertilizer by 25 lbs would result in an average loss of $25 per acre and $5 per acre for 5 lbs under-application. This would be a $12,5 loss for a 5 acre operation and $25, for the 5 lb under-application rate. Over application can also cause significant loss in profit, but the losses would be different since there likely would be less of an issue with decreased grain protein. The major challenge to growers is predicting the appropriate discount levels. An average level for both the price ratio and discount levels could be used but some caution should be taken. The current recommendation, 2.5 x yield goal n credits, can be used but may over-estimate the nitrogen need. However, the appropriate yield goal needs to be selected in order for the calculation to work. Related Research This study is a continuation of nitrogen rate work funded previously by the Minnesota Fertilizer Research and Education Council which ended in 21. The overall goal is to incorporate data from the current study with previous work to develop a N rate response database for spring wheat. In addition to the plant sampling work in this study, a separate grant was awarded to look at nutrient accumulation over the growing season to study how nutrient levels change over time in specific plant parts. In addition, a related project on ear leaf sampling in the corn hybrid trials is underway to study differences between hybrids and locations across the state of Minnesota. Recommended Future Research The current research does show the large potential economic benefit to N application for a high yielding moderate protein producing spring wheat variety. However, future research on varieties with varying protein potentials is key in order to determine if the MRTN approach can be adequately used for spring wheat. For example, the question could be raise if a variety with a higher protein potential may need as much N since it may be easier to achieve 14% protein. Further research would be helpful to determine if MRTN values should be not only adjusted based on the ratio of the price on nitrogen to the value of wheat but also to the protein potential for a variety. Page 56
6 Appendix Table 1. Trial location and planting information for spring wheat N rate studies. Location County Soil Type Soil Texture Variety Crookston Polk Wheatville Sandy Loam Otter Tail Formdale-Buse Clay Loam Kittson Northcote Clay Redwood Normania Loam Nicollet Loam RB7 Table 2. Spring soil test averages across replications for Spring wheat N trials. Soil Test (-6") Location P K SOM ph Nitrate N ppm %--- --lb/ac-- Crookston P, Olsen phosphorus; K, ammonium acetate potassium; SOM, soil organic matter; ph, soil ph. to 2 foot soil nitrate level. Table Yield averages for nitrogen rate treatments for the 212 spring wheat N rate study. Nitrogen Applied (lbs N/acre) Statistics Location avg. Sig. Model MaxN bushels/acre P>F- lbn/ac Crookston <.1 QP QP <.1 QP LP 15 Sig., significant for main treatment effects (nitrogen rate) according to ANOVA; Model, regression model that best fits the data (lin, linear; Quad, quadratic; QP, quadratic plateau; LP, linear plateau; NM, no model); MaxN, N rate where response was maximized (a rate of 18 indicates no maximum was achieved with N rates applied). Page 57
7 Table 4. Summary of estimated nitrogen needs based on maximum yields at each location and economic optimum N rates. Estimated N Need EONR Location Yield 2.5x STN Calculated AONR bu/ac lbs N/ac lb/ac lbs N/ac Crookston Yield, maximum agronomic yield; 2.5x, nitrogen rate at 2.5 x AONR; STN, avearage 2 soil nitrate; calculated, calculated N rate (YGx2.5-Ncredits.). Economic optimum nitrogen rate at specific fertilizer:wheat price ratios based on yield response data. Maximum agronomic nitrogen rate based on yield response. Table grain protein averages for nitrogen rate treatments from the 212 spring wheat N study. Nitrogen Applied (lbs N/acre) Statistics Location avg. Sig. Model MaxN % P>F-- lbn/ac Crookston <.1 QP 26 Fergus Falls <.1 Lin QP <.1 QP 88 Sig., significant for main treatment effects (nitrogen rate) according to ANOVA; Model, regression model that best fits the data (lin, linear; Quad, quadratic; QP, quadratic plateau; LP, linear plateau; NM, no model); MaxN, N rate where response was maximized (a rate of 18 indicates no maximum was achieved with N rates applied). Table 6. Summary of maximum return to N (MRTN) data for yield data summarized over five years in Northern Minnesota. Economic optimum N rate includes N applied in fertilizer + 2 soil test. EONR (.1) EONR (.15) Discount $/fifth low MRTN high low MRTN high lbs total N/ac lbs total N/ac MRTN, Maximum return to N for specified nitrogen price ($/lb):crop price ($/bu); EONR, Economic optimum nitrogen rate. Table 7. Summary of maximum return to N (MRTN) data for yield data summarized for wheat grown in Southern Minnesota. Economic optimum N rate includes N applied in fertilizer + 2 soil test. Page 58 EONR (.1) EONR (.15) Discount $/fifth low MRTN high low MRTN high lbs total N/ac lbs total N/ac not applicable MRTN, Maximum return to N for specified nitrogen price ($/lb):crop price ($/bu); EONR, Economic optimum nitrogen rate.
8 Table 8. Summary of extractable macronutrients and soil organic matter for studies conducted in 211 and 212 Ammonium Acetate Extractable Year Location Nitrate-N P K Ca Mg SO 4- S O.M ppm % Humboldt na na na na na na na na na Table 9. Summary of extractable micronutrients and soil ph. DTPA Extractable Year Location Zn Fe Cu Mn B ph ppm Humboldt Page 59
9 Table 1. Summary of statistical analysis for main treatment effects and their interaction. Main Effect Significance Nutrient Site Line Site x Line P>F Nitrogen <.1 <.1 <.1 Phosphorus <.1 <.1 <.1 Potassium <.1 <.1 <.1 Calcium <.1 <.1 <.1 Magnesium <.1 <.1 <.1 Sulfur <.1 <.1.1 Zinc < Iron Manganese <.1 <.1 <.1 Copper <.1 <.1.68 Boron <.1 <.1.4 Chlorine <.1 <.1 <.1 Effects are considered significant at P<.5 Table 11. Summary of nutrient sufficiency values published in AGR-92 by the University of Kentucky publication for small grains. N P K Ca Mg S Zn Fe Mn Cu B Cl % % % % % % Ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % to to To to to to To to to to to to Table 12. Pearson correlation coefficients for data collected across all locations and varieties. P K S Ca Mg Zn Fe Mn Cu B Cl YLD Twgt Protein N P K S Ca Mg Zn Fe Mn Cu B Cl Yield Twgt -.24 Page 6
10 Table 13. Pearson correlation coefficients for nutrient concentration in flag leaves and wheat grain yield at all locations. Correlations are not significant (P<.5) when r is between.3 and -.3 (n=45) Prob > r N P K Ca Mg S Zn Fe Mn Cu B Cl locations: 1, ; 2, Humboldt; 3, ; 4, ; 5, ; 6, ; 7, ; 8,. 212 locations: 9, ; 1, ; 11, ; 12, ; 13, ; 14, ; 15, ; 16; ; 17,. Table 14. Pearson correlation coefficients for nutrient concentration in flag leaves and wheat grain protein concentration at all locations. Correlations are not significant (P<.5) when r is between.3 and -.3 (n=45) Prob > r N P K Ca Mg S Zn Fe Mn Cu B Cl locations: 1, ; 2, Humboldt; 3, ; 4, ; 5, ; 6, ; 7, ; 8,. 212 locations: 9, ; 1, ; 11, ; 12, ; 13, ; 14, ; 15, ; 16; ; 17,. Table 15. Pearson correlation coefficients between soil test values and individual nutrient concentration averages for each location. Soil Test SOM ph N na P K Ca Mg S Zn Fe Mn Cu B Page 61
11 Table 16. Summary of average macronutrient, yield, and protein ranks for individual varieties across locations. Low values indicate a variety ranked high across many locations. Variety N P K Ca Mg S Yield Protein RB Table 17. Summary of average micronutrient, yield, and protein ranks for individual varieties across locations. Low values indicate a variety ranked high across many locations. Variety Zn Fe Mn Cu B Cl RB Page 62
12 Dollars per Acre Net Return Crop Value Fertilizer Cost Estimated Discounts Dollars per Acre Net Return Crop Value Fertilizer Cost Estimated Discounts Nitrogen Rate (lbs per acre) Nitrogen Rate (lbs per acre) Figure 1. Summary of MRTN model showing crop value, fertilizer cost, estimated discounts, and net return for the.1 price ratio with no discounts (left graph) and $.2 per fifth of a percent (right graph) in northern Minnesota Dollars per Acre Net Return Crop Value Fertilizer Cost Estimated Discounts Dollars per Acre Net Return Crop Value Fertilizer Cost Estimated Discounts Nitrogen Rate (lbs per acre) -5 Nitrogen Rate (lbs per acre) Figure 2. Summary of MRTN model showing crop value, fertilizer cost, estimated discounts, and net return for the.1 price ratio with no discounts (left graph) and $.2 per fifth of a percent (right graph) in southern Minnesota. Page 63
13 Flag Leaf N Concentration (%) Nitrogen Concentration Flag Leaf P Concentration (%) Phosphorus Concentration 2.5 RB7. RB7 3. Potassium Concentration 1.2 Calcium Concentration Flag Leaf K Concentration (%) Flag Leaf Ca Concentration (%) RB7. RB7 Flag Leaf Mg Concentration (%) Magnesium Concentration Flag Leaf S Concentration (%) Sulfur Concentration. RB7 RB7 Figure 3. Average macronutrient concentrations for varieties averaged across locations. Box plots represent the median and 25 th and 75 th quartile for the data. Whiskers are set at the 1 th and 9 th percentile. Points outside the whiskers represent extreme values across locations.. Page 64
14 Flag Leaf Zn Concentration (ppm) Zinc Concentration Flag Leaf Mn Concentration (ppm) Manganese Concentration 5 RB7 RB7 Flag Leaf Cu Concentration (ppm) Copper Concentration Flag Leaf Fe Concentration (ppm) Iron Concentration RB7 2 RB7 Flag Leaf B Concentration (ppm) 14 Boron Concentration Chlorine Concentration Flag Leaf Cl Concentration (%) RB7 RB7 Figure 4. Average micronutrient concentrations for varieties averaged across locations. Box plots represent the median and 25 th and 75 th quartile for the data. Whiskers are set at the 1 th and 9 th percentile. Points outside the whiskers represent extreme values across locations. Page 65
15 Flag Leaf N Concentration (%) Flag Leaf P Concentration (%) Flag Leaf K Concentration (%) Locations 211 Locations 211 Locations 212 Locations Figure 5. Average N, P and K concentrations for individual locations in 211 and 212 averaged across varieties. Box plots represent the median and 25 th and 75 th quartile for the data. Whiskers are set at the 1 th and 9 th percentile. Points outside the whiskers represent extreme values across locations. Flag Leaf N Concentration (%) Flag Leaf P Concentration (%) Flag Leaf K Concentration (%) Locations 212 Locations Page 66
16 Flag Leaf Ca Concentration (%) Flag Leaf Mg Concentration (%) Flag Leaf S Concentration (%) Locations 211 Locations 211 Locations 212 Locations Figure 6. Average Ca, Mg, and S concentrations for individual locations in 211 and 212 averaged across varieties. Box plots represent the median and 25 th and 75 th quartile for the data. Whiskers are set at the 1 th and 9 th percentile. Points outside the whiskers represent extreme values across locations. Flag Leaf Ca Concentration (%) Flag Leaf Mg Concentration (%) Flag Leaf S Concentration (%) Locations 212 Locations Page 67
17 Flag Leaf Zn Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf Fe Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf Mn Concentration (ppm) Locations 211 Locations 211 Locations 212 Locations Figure 7. Average Zn, Fe and Mn concentrations for individual locations in 211 and 212 averaged across varieties. Box plots represent the median and 25 th and 75 th quartile for the data. Whiskers are set at the 1 th and 9 th percentile. Points outside the whiskers represent extreme values across locations. Flag Leaf Zn Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf Fe Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf Mn Concentration (ppm) Locations 212 Locations Page 68
18 Flag Leaf Cu Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf B Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf Cl Concentration (%) Locations 211 Locations 211 Locations 212 Locations Figure 8. Average Mn, B, and Cl concentrations for individual locations in 211 and 212 averaged across varieties. Box plots represent the median and 25 th and 75 th quartile for the data. Whiskers are set at the 1 th and 9 th percentile. Points outside the whiskers represent extreme values across locations. Flag Leaf Cu Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf B Concentration (ppm) Flag Leaf Cl Concentration (%) Locations 212 Locations Page 69
What s new with micronutrients in our part of the world?
2006 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 181 What s new with micronutrients in our part of the world? George Rehm, Professor, Soil, Water and Climate, University of Minnesota
More informationInterpreting Soils Report. Beyond N P K
Interpreting Soils Report Beyond N P K What we will cover We will not discuss Macro Nutrients Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium. We will touch on Secondary Nutrients Magnesium, Calcium and Sulfur. We
More informationUse of Soil and Tissue Testing for Sustainable Crop Nutrient Programs
Use of Soil and Tissue Testing for Sustainable Crop Nutrient Programs Kelly T. Morgan Soil and Water Science Department Southwest Florida Research and Education Center Immokalee 239 658 3400 conserv@ufl.edu
More informationBarley and Sugarbeet Symposium
MICRONUTRIENT TESTING & MANAGEMENT IN BARLEY, CORN & PULSES Barley and Sugarbeet Symposium Billings, MT January 10, 2017 Clain Jones clainj@montana.edu 994-6076 MSU Soil Fertility Extension Goals Today
More informationInterpreting Plant Tissue and Soil Sample Analysis
Interpreting Plant Tissue and Soil Sample Analysis Dan Fromme Associate Professor-Cotton, Corn, & Grain Sorghum Specialist LSU AgCenter Dean Lee Research & Extension Center Alexandria, Louisiana Fertilization
More informationVariability in Tissue Testing What Does It Mean For Nutrient Recommendations?
Variability in Tissue Testing What Does It Mean For Nutrient Recommendations? Daniel Kaiser Assistant Professor Department of Soil, Water and Climate U of M Twin Cities 612-624-3482 dekaiser@umn.edu Why
More informationNutrient management irrigated corn. Jim Camberato
Nutrient management irrigated corn Jim Camberato jcambera@purdue.edu Irrigated corn response to N Indiana Michigan 300 2008CS 2008CC 2008CC2 2013CS 2014CC 2014CW 2015CS Grain yield, bu/ac 250 200 150
More informationMarkus Braaten. Elston D. Solberg. Director of Agri-Knowledge Agri-Trend. US Director of Agri-Knowledge Agri-Trend USA
Water Drives Everything!! So Make Every Drop Count Elston D. Solberg Director of Agri-Knowledge Agri-Trend Markus Braaten US Director of Agri-Knowledge Agri-Trend USA Food, Fibre and Fuel Uptake (lbs/a)
More informationRaymond C. Ward Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE
Raymond C. Ward Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE www.wardlab.com There is More Than N P K Major Nutrients N, P, and K Secondary Nutrients Calcium, Magnesium, and Sulfur Micro-Nutrients Zinc, Iron, Manganese,
More informationSunflower Special Topics: Nutrient Requirements of Sunflower
01/11/2017 National Sunflower Association Research Forum Sunflower Special Topics: Nutrient Requirements of Sunflower Chris Graham, SDSU, West River Agri. & Ext. Center, Rapid City, SD; David Franzen,
More informationNutrient Recommendations Agronomic Crops Last Updated 12/1/16. Grain Corn. Crop Highlights Target ph: 6.0
Nutrient Recommendations Agronomic Crops Last Updated 12/1/16 Crop Highlights Target ph: 6.0 Grain Corn Split N applications to increase N-use efficiency in corn. Apply a small amount (20-25%) at planting
More informationEnclosed are the tissue analysis results for the samples from the greens at Golf Club.
Enclosed are the tissue analysis results for the samples from the greens at Golf Club. The results for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, and sodium are reported on a percent
More informationMICRONUTRIENT PRINCIPLES
MICRONUTRIENT PRINCIPLES MGGA Convention Great Falls December 1, 2015 Clain Jones clainj@montana.edu 994-6076 MSU Soil Fertility Extension Clickers are better than cell phones because: A. You don t listen
More informationChapter 1: Overview of soil fertility, plant nutrition, and nutrient management
Chapter 1: Overview of soil fertility, plant nutrition, and nutrient management Agustin Pagani, John E. Sawyer, and Antonio P. Mallarino / Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University Developed in cooperation
More informationUSE OF OCEANGROWN PRODUCTS TO INCREASE CROP YIELD AND ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT CONTENT. Dave Franzen, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
USE OF OCEANGROWN PRODUCTS TO INCREASE CROP YIELD AND ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT CONTENT Dave Franzen, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND Introduction OceanGrown (OG) products (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
More information2009 Elba Muck Soil Nutrient Survey Results Summary, Part III: Calcium, Magnesium and Micronutrients
29 Elba Muck Soil Nutrient Survey Results Summary, Part III: Calcium, Magnesium and Micronutrients Christy Hoepting, Cornell Cooperative Extension Vegetable Program Introduction This is the final part
More informationHow to Develop a Balanced Program for Pecan and Chili. Robert R Smith
Essential Plant Nutrients How to Develop a Balanced Program for Pecan and Chili Robert R Smith Nutrition Management Involves Knowledge of: Site/Soil characteristics and chemistry Plant requirements Cropping
More informationCorn and soybean yield responses to micronutrients fertilization
2014 Integrated Crop Management Conference - Iowa State University 129 Corn and soybean yield respoes to micronutrients fertilization Antonio P. Mallarino, professor, Agronomy, Iowa State University; Joshua
More informationQuick Tips for Nutrient Management in Washington Berry Crops. Lisa Wasko DeVetter Assistant Professor, Small Fruit Horticulture March 16, 2016
Quick Tips for Nutrient Management in Washington Berry Crops Lisa Wasko DeVetter Assistant Professor, Small Fruit Horticulture March 16, 2016 Goals of Talk Overall goal is not to provide a comprehensive
More informationIn mid-october, all plots were again soil sampled to determine residual nutrients.
Spent Rate Effects on beet and Quality (2004 and 2007) Wheat and Soybean (2005 and 2006) Larry J. Smith, Head; Todd E. Cymbaluk and Jeffrey D. Nielsen, Assistant Scientists; Northwest Research and Outreach
More informationMicronutrient Management. Dorivar Ruiz Diaz Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management
Micronutrient Management Dorivar Ruiz Diaz Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management Essential Nutrients Thirteen essential nutrients Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur Iron, manganese,
More informationIntroduction to Wolf Trax
Introduction to Wolf Trax Wolf Trax INNOVATIVE NUTRIENTS Plant Nutrition Specialists Selling innovative nutrients since 2002 Sales in 90 regulatory jurisdictions worldwide Over 20 million acres of DDP
More informationManaging Micronutrients with Soil (Plant) Testing and Fertilizer
Managing Micronutrients with Soil (Plant) Testing and Fertilizer What Is Plant Analysis? A tool to monitor or make decisions Identify nutrient deficiencies and determine nutrient shortages Determining
More informationTrends in Micro-Nutrient Soil Test Levels in Saskatchewan Pat Flaten, PAg 1, Brandon Green, PAg 2, Paul Routledge, PAg 3
Trends in Micro-Nutrient Soil Test Levels in Saskatchewan Pat Flaten, PAg 1, Brandon Green, PAg 2, Paul Routledge, PAg 3 1 Enviro-Test Laboratories, 124 Veterinary Road, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E3 2 Enviro-Test
More informationPlant Food. Nitrogen (N)
Plant Food Nitrogen (N) Functions: Promote plant growth Increase protein content of crops Improves quality of crop Makes plant more efficient with water Helps for stay green and dry down Plants take up
More informationFertility management in soybean
Fertility management in soybean Dorivar Ruiz Diaz Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management In-depth Soybean Schools 2014 Overview Considerations for soil sampling and testing. Considerations for N, P and
More informationInterpretation of Soil Tests for Environmental Considerations
Interpretation of Soil Tests for Environmental Considerations Ray Ward Ward Laboratories, Inc Kearney, NE www.wardlab.com Guiding Producers Today to Feed the World Tomorrow www.wardlab.com Saline County
More informationLimitations to Plant Analysis. John Peters & Carrie Laboski Department of Soil Science University of Wisconsin-Madison
Limitations to Plant Analysis John Peters & Carrie Laboski Department of Soil Science University of Wisconsin-Madison What is an essential plant nutrient omission of the element will result in abnormal
More informationBOTANY AND PLANT GROWTH Lesson 9: PLANT NUTRITION. MACRONUTRIENTS Found in air and water carbon C oxygen hydrogen
BOTANY AND PLANT GROWTH Lesson 9: PLANT NUTRITION Segment One Nutrient Listing Plants need 17 elements for normal growth. Carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are found in air and water. Nitrogen, phosphorus,
More informationUnderstanding a Soil Report
Understanding a Soil Report AGRONOMY SOIL ANALYSIS 1. Soil ph Soil ph is a measure of the acidity in the soil. An acidic soil has a greater amount of hydrogen (H+) ions and a ph below 7.0. Values above
More informationPotash Phosphate Nitrogen
Nutrients 160 140 120 100 Potash Phosphate Nitrogen 80 60 40 20 0 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Year FAOSTAT 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000
More informationYaraVita PROCOTE. The colors of yield.
YaraVita PROCOTE The colors of yield. Micronutrient Coating YaraVita PROCOTE is an innovative liquid technology developed by Yara for coating prilled and granular fertilizers with micronutrients. It allows
More informationPotassium and Phosphorus as Plant Nutrients. Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients. Potassium is required in large amounts by many crops
Potassium and Phosphorus as Plant Nutrients Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients Potassium is required in large amounts by many crops Yield K 2 O taken up Crop level/ac in total crop, lb Alfalfa 8 tons
More informationRECENT ADVANCES IN ALFALFA TISSUE TESTING. Steve Orloff, Dan Putnam and Rob Wilson 1 INTRODUCTION
RECENT ADVANCES IN ALFALFA TISSUE TESTING Steve Orloff, Dan Putnam and Rob Wilson 1 INTRODUCTION Adequate plant nutrition is paramount to achieving high alfalfa yield. In addition, nutrient management
More informationUsing Tissue and Soil Tests Together Helps Make Better Decisions. John Lee Soil Scientist AGVISE Northwood, ND
Using Tissue and Soil Tests Together Helps Make Better Decisions John Lee Soil Scientist AGVISE Northwood, ND Winter Wheat Tissue Demo Northwood, ND Prevent Plant field from 2011 Winter wheat seeded late
More informationAGVISE Laboratories Established 1976
AGVISE Laboratories Established 1976 John Lee: Soil Scientist Northwood Benson Tissue and Soil Testing Together Help Make Better Decisions What is Plant Analysis Snap Shot in the life of a plant A report
More information1) Yellow Corn in 2014 Compared to 2013 and ) Time of Day Plant Tissue Project
1) Yellow Corn in 2014 Compared to 2013 and 2012 2) Time of Day Plant Tissue Project Richard Jenny Agronomist AGVISE Labs, Benson, MN richardj@agvise.com Twitter: Agvise Laboratories Yellow Corn in 2014
More informationFertilization Programming
Fertilization Plant Composition Water composes 90% of plant weight (fresh weight) Dry weight is composed of 17 essential elements: Non-fertilizer elements: Carbon (C) -- 41% of dry weight (DW) Hydrogen
More informationMineral Nutrition of Fruit & Nut Trees. Fruit & Nut Tree Nutrition 3/1/2013. Johnson - Nutrition 1
Mineral Nutrition of Fruit & Nut Trees R. Scott Johnson Extension Pomologist UC Kearney Ag Center Fruit & Nut Tree Nutrition 1. Basic Principles 2. Sampling for Nutrients 3. Environmental Issues 4. BMPs
More informationUnderstanding Your Soil Report. Michael Cook 2018
Understanding Your Soil Report Michael Cook 2018 Soil Sampling Advantage gives nutrient concentrations may shed light on soil issues baseline so look for trends can be done pre-plant timing not as critical
More informationPlant Nutrients in Mineral Soils
The Supply and Availability of Plant Nutrients in Mineral Soils Plant Nutrients in Mineral Soils Factors Controlling the Growth of Higher Plants 1. Light 2. Mechanical Support. Heat. Air 5. Water 6. Nutrients
More informationSoil Fertility and Nutrient Management. Hailin Zhang. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences
Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management Hailin Zhang Department of Plant and Soil Sciences C H O P N K 16 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Ca S Mg B Cl Cu Fe Mn Mo B NON-MINERAL NUTRIENTS Carbon (C) Hydrogen (H) Oxygen
More informationObjectives: 1. Determine the effect of nitrogen and potassium applications on sugar beet root yield and quality.
NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM EFFECTS ON SUGAR BEET QUALITY John A. Lamb 1, Mark W. Bredehoeft 2, and Chris Dunsmore 2 1 Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 2 Southern
More informationA & L GREAT LAKES LABORATORIES, INC.
Report No. F10035-0027 59018 3505 Conestoga Drive Fort Wayne, Indiana 46808 260-483-4759 Fax 260-483-5274 Account No. Date Reported: 02/08/2010 SOIL TEST REPORT Page: 1 of 2 Cation Lab Organic Phosphorus
More informationSoil fertility and fertilizers for wild blueberry production
Revised 2013 Wild Blueberry Factsheet D.2.0 Soil fertility and fertilizers for wild blueberry production Introduction The wild blueberry is a perennial plant which grows naturally on a variety of soil
More informationMay 2008 AG/Soils/ pr Understanding Your Soil Test Report Grant E. Cardon Jan Kotuby-Amacher Pam Hole Rich Koenig General Information
May 2008 AG/Soils/2008-01pr Understanding Your Soil Test Report Grant E. Cardon, USU Extension Soil Specialist Jan Kotuby-Amacher, Coordinator for North American Proficiency Testing Program Pam Hole, Supervisor
More informationSupplying Nutrients to Crops
Supplying Nutrients to Crops What is Plant Nutrition? Plants need nutrients for healthy growth and development. Plant nutrition involves the absorption of nutrients for plant growth and is dependent on
More informationFERTILIZER EFFECTS UPON MICRONUTRIENT NUTRITION OF THE AVOCADO
California Avocado Society 1959 Yearbook 43: 96-99 FERTILIZER EFFECTS UPON MICRONUTRIENT NUTRITION OF THE AVOCADO C. K. Labanauskas, T. W. Embleton, and W. W. Jones Assistant Horticulturist, Associate
More informationSOILS AND PLANT NUTRITION
SOILS AND PLANT NUTRITION WHAT IS SOIL? Soil is the medium in which plants grow - the basis for plant growth. I can t get any respect. People treat me like dirt! Four Major Components of Soil Sand Silt
More informationEvaluation of Manganese Fertility of Upland Cotton in the Lower Colorado Valley
Evaluation of Manganese Fertility of Upland Cotton in the Lower Colorado Valley J.C. Silvertooth and. Galadima bstract field experiments was conducted during the 2001 growing season to evaluate the effect
More informationMicronutrient Requirements of Crops
Agdex 531-1 Micronutrient Requirements of Crops C rops require 16 essential elements to grow properly. The elements include carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (0 2 ), which are derived from air and water.
More informationNutrition of Horticultural Crops. Monica Ozores-Hampton University of Florida/IFAS/SWFREC Spring 2013
Nutrition of Horticultural Crops Monica Ozores-Hampton University of Florida/IFAS/SWFREC Spring 2013 Phosphorous Essential Nutrients - List MACRONUTRIENTS: MICRONUTRIENTS: Nitrogen Boron Phosphorus Chlorine
More informationReading and Analyzing your Fertilizer Bag. Dr. Cari Peters Vice President
Reading and Analyzing your Fertilizer Bag Dr. Cari Peters Vice President caripeters@jrpeters.com Designer, Formulator, Producer and custom manufacturer of high quality fertilizer products. Hand s on Horticulture
More informationTerry Richmond s Fertilizer Package mentioned in the panel discussion March 14, 2013.
Terry Richmond s Fertilizer Package mentioned in the panel discussion March 14, 2013. Roles of the 16 essential nutrients in plant development Sixteen plant food nutrients are essential for proper crop
More informationNutrients & Diagnosing Nutrient Needs. Carrie Laboski Dept. of Soil Science UW-Madison
Nutrients & Diagnosing Nutrient Needs Carrie Laboski Dept. of Soil Science UW-Madison Sources of nutrients available for plant uptake Nutrients in the soil solution are: In ionic form At low concentration
More informationDry Bean Fertility Dave Franzen NDSU Soil Science Specialist
Dry Bean Fertility Dave Franzen NDSU Soil Science Specialist Dry bean is responsive to fertilizer when soil levels are inadequate to support yield levels possible with existing soil moisture and growing
More informationEssential Soil Nutrients for Plant Growth and Development
Essential Soil Nutrients for Plant Growth and Development Essential nutrients required by plants Role of nutrients within the plant Symptoms of deficiencies/toxicities 2 The basic soil components are:
More informationSoil Composition. Air
Soil Composition Air Soil Included Air Approximately 40 to 60% of the volume of a soil is actually empty space between the solid particles (voids). These voids are filled with air and/or water. The air
More informationREMEMBER as we go through this exercise: Science is the art of making simple things complicated!
REMEMBER as we go through this exercise: Science is the art of making simple things complicated! Fertilization of Hops Ron Godin, Ph.D., Colorado State University Extension Fertilization of Hops - Care
More informationPredicting Potential Grain Protein Content of Spring Wheat with in-season Hand-Held Optical Sensors.
Predicting Potential Grain Protein Content of Spring Wheat with in-season Hand-Held Optical Sensors. orth Dakota State University orth Dakota State University Introduction Why is Protein Important in Spring
More informationNut Crop Nutrition Understanding the Principles to Optimize the Practices.
Nut Crop Nutrition Understanding the Principles to Optimize the Practices. Fruit Growers Lab Conference Tulare, March 16, 2010 Bob Beede, UC Farm Advisor Kings County http://cekings.ucdavis.edu/ Nutrition
More informationINTERPRETATION GUIDE TO SOIL TEST REPORTS
Originators of Your Crop's Dieticians 4915 West Monte Cristo Road Edinburg, Texas 78541 Telephone: 956-383-0739 Facsimile: 956-383-0730 INTERPRETATION GUIDE TO SOIL TEST REPORTS TPSL 's Daubeny Carbon
More informationAnimal, Plant & Soil Science. D3-7 Characteristics and Sources of Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients
Animal, Plant & Soil Science D3-7 Characteristics and Sources of Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients Interest Approach Obtain samples of minerals that serve as sources of calcium, magnesium, and sulfur
More informationNutrition. Grain Legume Handbook
Grain Legume Handbook Nutrition If the nutrients (phosphorus, nitrogen, zinc, etc.) removed as grain from the paddock are not replaced then crop yields and soil fertility will fall. This means that fertilizer
More informationCOMPARISON OF IMPREGNATED DRY FERTILIZER WITH S AND ZN BLENDS FOR CORN AND SOYBEANS
COMPARISON OF IMPREGNATED DRY FERTILIZER WITH S AND ZN BLENDS FOR CORN AND SOYBEANS Matthew Caldwell Graduate Student Bruce Burdick Research Associate & Superintendent Kelly Nelson Research Agronomist
More informationEffect of Irrigation and Nutrient Management on Yield and Quality of Timothy Hay. Final Report
Effect of Irrigation and Nutrient Management on Yield and Quality of Timothy Hay Part 1: Effect of Nutrient Management on Yield and Quality of Timothy Hay Final Report by Pat G. Pfiffner 1, Ross H. McKenzie
More informationFACT SHEET. Understanding Cation Exchange Capacity and % Base Saturation
Understanding Cation Exchange Capacity and % Base Saturation FACT SHEET A & L CANADA LABORATORIES, INC. 2136 Jetstream Rd. London, ON N5V 3P5 Phone: 519-457-2575 Fax: 519-457-2664 Aginfo@alcanada.com www.alcanada.com
More information12. ZINC - The Major Minor
12. ZINC - The Major Minor It is the opinion of many that after nitrogen, zinc is the most limiting nutrient toward achieving maximum crop yields. More and more zinc deficiencies are being reported - many
More informationRELIABILITY OF SOIL AND PLANT ANALYSES FOR MAKING NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS
RELIABILITY OF SOIL AND PLANT ANALYSES FOR MAKING NUTRIENT RECOMMENDATIONS Robert. O. Miller Soil and Crop Sciences Dept. Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Phone: 970-686-5702 Fax: 970-491-0564
More information3.0 Supplying Nutrients to Crops
3.0 Supplying Nutrients to Crops Plants need for healthy growth and development. Plant nutrition involves the absorption of nutrients for plant growth and is dependent on, often referred to as nutrients.
More informationTrace Yet Substantial
Trace Yet Substantial ESSENTIAL MICRONUTRIENTS OF PECAN Joshua Sherman University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Cooperative Extension Commercial Horticulture, Area Assistant Agent
More informationINITIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF POOR SUGARBEET AREAS. D.W. Franzen, D.H. Hopkins, and Mohamed Khan North Dakota State University INTRODUCTION
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF POOR SUGARBEET AREAS D.W. Franzen, D.H. Hopkins, and Mohamed Khan North Dakota State University INTRODUCTION There have recently been grower concerns over certain poor-growing
More informationSoil Nutrients and Fertilizers. Essential Standard Explain the role of nutrients and fertilizers.
Soil Nutrients and Fertilizers Essential Standard 6.00- Explain the role of nutrients and fertilizers. Objective 6.01 Discuss macro and micro nutrients and the role they play in plant deficiencies. Macro
More informationBy Andrew & Erin Oxford, Bethel
Chemistry in Plant Nutrition & Growth Objectives Review elements of chemistry and apply them to plant nutrition and growth in an agricultural context. Suggested grade levels 9-12 Alaska Content Standards
More informationINTERPRETING SOIL & LEAF ANALYSIS
INTERPRETING SOIL & LEAF ANALYSIS Nutrient use in Tree Fruit 94% of plant dry weight is carbohydrates (C, H, O) Primary sugars are sorbitol, fructose, sucrose and starch 6% is minerals 2 Essential Elements
More informationSulphur Fertilizer Effect on Crop Development & Quality
Sulphur Fertilizer Effect on Crop Development & Quality Sulphur Play a key role in: Chlorophyll (Photosynthesis) a key ingredient in the formation and sulphur deficient plants can be 40% lower in chlorophyll.
More informationPlants Essential Elements. Macro and Micronutrients
Plants Essential Elements Macro and Micronutrients Nutrients Are elements needed by a plant to promote healthy tissue, processes, and growth. When plants are lacking in nutrients have a deficiency and
More informationWelcome. Greg Patterson C.C.A. President A&L Canada Laboratories
Welcome Greg Patterson C.C.A. President A&L Canada Laboratories Discussion Soil test levels Dropping P,K Organic matter levels dropping Cost of Fertilizer Increasing due to Global Demand Environmental
More informationSoils and Soil Fertility Management
Soils and Soil Fertility Management Mark L. McFarland Professor and Soil Fertility Specialist Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service College Station, Texas Four Principal Components of Soil Air Mineral Solid
More informationMicro Site Enhanced Technology. How it Works
Micro ite Enhanced Technology How it Works TIGER MICRONUTRIENT fertilizers began in the lab in Calgary, Canada, where Tiger-ul Products tested the theory of taking extremely fine metal oxide particles,
More informationSoybean Soil Fertility
Soybean Soil Fertility Dave Franzen, Extension Soil Science Specialist Soybean has a need, as do most crops, for the 14 mineral nutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulfur (S), calcium
More informationNutrient level (EC) in a pot is like a bank
Dirt, Fert and Squirt (1) Supplying Essential Nutrients What are the most common nutritional problems? Too much fertilizer Not enough fertilizer Paul Fisher pfisher@ufl.edu 1 ph too high ph too low 2 Nutrient
More informationSoil Program Recommendation
Soil Program Recommendation Grower: G.C. Wynne Consultant: Bill Munton Doyle St Quirindi NSW 2343 Soil Test No: K6930ABC These comments and suggestions are based on our interpretation of soil analysis
More informationTim Mundorf Fall 2016
Page 1 of 12 Tim Mundorf Fall 2016 Introduction In 2014, clients in Iowa and Canada asked Midwest Laboratories to compare Mehlich III extraction of nutrients analyzed by ICP to Midwest Laboratories traditional
More informationMulti-K. Potassium Nitrate Products For Healthy Crops
Multi-K Potassium Nitrate Products For Healthy Crops Contents Potassium in the plant Multi-K and its advantages Nutrigation with Multi-K Foliar nutrition with Haifa Bonus Multi-K properties Multi-K products
More informationEffectiveness on Soil and Foliar Applied Micronutrient Mixes
Effectiveness on Soil and Foliar Applied Micronutrient Mixes Rigas E. Karamanos, Norm A. Flore and John T. Harapiak Western Co-operative Fertilizers Limited, P.O. Box 2500, Calgary, AB T2P 2N1 Abstract
More informationRULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO FERTILIZERS
RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO FERTILIZERS Pursuant to due publication and notice of opportunity for a public hearing, the director has adopted the following regulations: 1. Plant Nutrients in Addition
More information2007 PERFORMANCE OF WINTER BARLEY (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare) AND SPRING WAXY BARLEY VARIETIES PLANTED IN THE FALL
2007 PERFORMANCE OF WINTER BARLEY (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare) AND SPRING WAXY BARLEY VARIETIES PLANTED IN THE FALL 0. Steven Norberg Malheur County Extension Service Clinton C. Shock, Lamont D. Saunders,
More informationEC Fertilizer Know How
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Historical Materials from University of Nebraska- Lincoln Extension Extension 1973 EC73-197 Fertilizer Know How D. H. Sander
More informationTHE ECONOMICS OF FERTILIZING ALFALFA IN CALIFORNIA. Roland D. Meyer Extension Soils Specialist University of California, Davis
THE ECNMICS F FERTILIZING ALFALFA IN CALIFRNIA Roland D. Meyer Extension Soils Specialist University of California, Davis Looking back over the past year, the economic picture for alfalfa production has
More informationApples and Pears. Above 2.7. Above 2.4
Apples and Pears Leaf Analysis Interpretation Apples and Pears Nitrogen (N) Below 1.9 1 Below 1.7 2 1.7 to 2.4 Above 2.4 1.9 to 2.7 Above 2.7 Potassium (K) Below 1.2 1.3 to 1.9 Above 2.0 Calcium (Ca) Below
More informationDOMOGRAN 45 ACTIVATING YOUR NUTRIENT POTENTIAL THE NITROGEN-SULFUR FERTILIZER FROM LEUNA
DOMOGRAN 45 ACTIVATING YOUR NUTRIENT POTENTIAL THE NITROGEN-SULFUR FERTILIZER FROM LEUNA www.domogran.de DOMOGRAN 45 nitrogen and sulfur fertilizer for positive nutrient dynamics Because of its attraction
More informationSoil Conditions Favoring Micronutrient Deficiencies and Responses in 2001
Soil Conditions Favoring Micronutrient Deficiencies and Responses in 2001 K.A. Kelling and P.E. Speth Department of Soil Science University of Wisconsin-Madison Why micronutrients now: Higher yield, therefore
More informationDetermination of available nutrients in soil using the Agilent 4200 MP-AES
Determination of available nutrients in soil using the Agilent 4200 MP-AES Application note Agriculture Author Dharmendra Vummiti Agilent Technologies, India Introduction Multielement testing of soil samples
More informationSpecialists In Soil Fertility, Plant Nutrition and Irrigation Water Quality Management.
Specialists In Soil Fertility, Plant Nutrition and Irrigation Water Quality Management. TOMATOES T PLANT NUTRITION & SAMPLING NOTES - 1 Noel Garcia, CCA he most important aspect of tomato production (field,
More informationUNDERSTANDING MICRONUTRIENT FERTILIZATION IN ALFALFA. Roland D. Meyer, Daniel B Marcum and Steve B. Orloff 1 ABSTRACT
UNDERSTANDING MICRONUTRIENT FERTILIZATION IN ALFALFA Roland D. Meyer, Daniel B Marcum and Steve B. Orloff 1 ABSTRACT Alfalfa is the major forage used for feed in the dairy and other animal industries in
More informationCranberry Nutrition: An A Z Guide. Joan R. Davenport Soil Scientist Washington State University
Cranberry Nutrition: An A Z Guide Joan R. Davenport Soil Scientist Washington State University Soil Derived Plant Essential Elements Macro Micro Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P) Sulfur (S) Potassium (K) Calcium
More informationSOIL TEST INTERPRETATION JIM FASCHING Technical Field Representative
SOIL TEST INTERPRETATION JIM FASCHING Technical Field Representative jfasching@midwestlabs.com 507 273-3339 TERMS ppm = parts per million 2 million pounds of soil represented by soil samples taken 6 inches
More information5. Plant Physiology/Chemistry Section
5. Plant Physiology/Chemistry Section The research work/experiments conducted during the year 2014-15 are summarized is under: 1. Influence of potassium fertilizer on the incidence of CLCuV disease and
More informationPreventing, diagnosing and understanding nutrient deficiencies in plants
Preventing, diagnosing and understanding nutrient deficiencies in plants Dr. Michael J. Mulvaney Cropping Systems Specialist 35 th Florida Master Gardener Continued Training Conference St. Augustine, FL
More information