Non-Peer ReviewedA field experiment was conducted in the Brown Soil Zone comparing three methods of fertilizer placement: deep banding, side banding, and with the seed, using ammonium phosphate fertilizer in a zero-till continuous wheat rotation. Placement with the seed was found to produce the highest yield and had the lowest cost of production

Dyck, F.B.

Tessier, S.

Zentner, R.P.

English

eCommons@USASK

Methods of applying ammonium phosphate fertilizer in a continuous wheat rotation in southwest Saskatchewan

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

METHODS OF APPLYING AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER IN A CONTINUOUS WHEAT ROTATION IN SOUTHWEST SASKATCHEWAN by F.B. Dyck, S. Tessier and R.P. Zentner Agriculture Canada Research Station Swift Current, Saskatchewan ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted in the Brown soil zone comparing three methods of fertilizer placement -- deep banding, side banding and with the seed, using ammonium phosphate fertilizer in a zero-till continuous wheat rotation. Placement with the seed was found to produce the highest yield and had the lowest cost of production. INTRODUCTION Fertilizer placement in a zero-till system has been a concern of pro-ducers and researchers alike, particularly for a continuous cropping rota-tion where high rates of nitrogen may be required. In the conventional cropping system, banding fertilizer has been recommended as the best method of application (Harapiak 1982); however, the comparison has usually been made to broadcast applications, often to fall broadcasting, which is the least efficient of all application methods (Selles et al. 1986). Broad-casting nitrogen fertilizers in a zero-till system is considered undesirable because it feeds shallow-rooted weeds (Payton et al. 1985; Veseth et al. 1986) like green foxtail and may get tied up in surface residue. Under dry conditions it may also not get dissolved and carried down into the root zone to become available to the plant. Therefore, seed placement and banding were considered to be the best available options. A field experiment was set up to determine which treatment would give the better results. Ammonium phosphate fertilizer was chosen because higher rates of nitrogen could be seed placed. The experiment was done in a zero-till system; however, the equipment used and the costs noted are also suitable for a minimum or con-ventional tillage system. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE A randomized plot design of 6 treatments and 4 replicates was used for a continuous cropping experiment with zero-till seeding. Weed control was achieved with a pre-seeding chemical burn-off and conventional in-crop spraying. Fertilizer was applied in accordance with soil test recommenrla-tions for nitrogen and phosphorus. Plots were seeded with Leader, hard red spring wheat. Treatments 1. Spring deep banding of all fertilizer 12.5 em deep, 30-cm shank spac-ing. Seeded with a Versatile Noble hoe drill with zero-till points at 20-cm spacing. 139 2. Spring deep banding of all fertilizer 12.5 em rleep, 30-cm shank spac-ing. Seeded with a Versatile Noble disc drill at 20-cm spacing. 3. Seeded with a Versatile Noble 2000 hoe drill with the banding boot which placed all the fertilizer 2. 5 em below a split seed row (5 em apart) in one operation. 4. Seeded with a Versatile Noble 2000 disc drill (prototype) which placed all the fertilizer 2. 5 em below a split seed row 5 em apart in one operation. 5. Seeded with a Versatile Noble 2000 hoe drill. Fertilizer was all plac-ed with the seed. Row spacing was 20 em. 6. Seed with a Versatile Noble 2000 disc drill. Fertilizer was all placed with the seed. Row spacing was 20 em. A cost analysis for the seeding and fertilizer placement operations was prepared. Table 1 lists equipment and associated cost of operation. Table 2 shows the treatment cost but does not include the cost of seed and fertilizer and of preseeding chemical burnoff. Table 1. Summary of Economic Assumptions Implement Hoe press drill Hoe press drill, w/banding boots Disc press drill Disc press drill, w/banding attachment Fertilizer bander * Replacement Cost* ($) 38,120 39,475 40,560 41,910 25,200 Fixed Costs Implement Tractor ------------------6.35 3.08 6.58 3.08 6.76 3.08 6.99 3.08 4.20 3.08 Replacement costs are for 9 m equipment. Variable Cost Total Cost $/ha ---------------8.43 17. 86 10.18 19. 84 8. 43 18.27 10.18 20.25 10.18 17.46 For zero-till, a disk and hoe drill require approximately equal draft. For side banding, power requirements are 50% higher due to the extra depth required to get the seed to moisture. 140 Table 2. Summary of Seed and Fertilizer Placement Costs Treatment Total Cost $/ha $/acre With the seed 18.00 7.30 Side banning 20.00 8.10 Deep banding 35.30 14.25 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the years of testing are shown in Tables 3 and 4 as follows: Table 3. Fertilizer Placement Test 1983-1987 Seen Stnd. Dev. Plan2s/ Depth of Yield Year Treatment m (em) Seed Depth kg/ha bu/acre 1983 Deep banded hoe 126.4a 4. 8de • 92a 1605.90 23.89a Deep banded disc 129.7a 3.7ab 1. llab 1689.99 25.13a Side banded hoe 135.3a 5.2e 1. 28b 1745.83 25.97a Side banded disc 119. 4a 4.1bc 1. 86c 1645.57 24.47a With seed hoe 122.1a 4.6cd .95a 1589.74 23.64a With seed disc 119. 1a 3.3a • 86a 1605.22 23.88a Seeded May 23, 168 kg/ha 26-30-0 was applied; 43.7 kg/ha (38.9 lb/acre) N 1984 Deep banded hoe 149.1b 4.2a • 90a 212.92 3.16a Deep banded disc 141.8ab 6.5c 1.28bc 169.87 2.52a Side banded hoe 141.3ab 5.2b • 93ab 169.53 2.52a Side banded disc 137.3ab 5.6b 1.50c 199.48 2. 98a With seed hoe 129.9a 4.1a .97a 237.15 3.53a With seed disc 141.1ab 5.3b 1. 14ab 359.61 5.35b Seeded May 26, 174 kg/ha 26-13-0 was applied; 45.2 kg/ha (40.3 lb/acre) N 1985 Deep banded hoe 190.9b 4. 8b • 78a 767.34 11. 42ab Deep banded disc 151.9a 6. 8d 1.28bc 711.61 10.58ab Side banded hoe 185.5b 4.4ab l.lOab 664.09 9. 87a Side banded disc 148. 9a 5.7c 1.59c 668.20 9.93a With seed hoe 148.2a 4.1a • 78a 888.66 13.22b With seed disc 152.8 5.4c 1. 21b 813.12 12.09ab Seeded May 15, 125 kg/ha 26-13-0 was applied; 32.5 kg/ha (28.9 lb/acre) N ... continued 141 Table 3 (continued) Seed Stnd. Dev. Plan2_s/ Depth of Yield Year Treatment m (em) Seed Depth kg/ha bu/acre 1986 Deep banded hoe 170.9c 4.0a .79a 2673.59 39.76a Deep banded disc 128. 9b 5. 9cd 1.31bc 2592.85 38. 57a Side banded hoe 132.5b 6.0d 1.13b 2748.93 40.88a Side banded disc 105.3a 5.6c 1.31bc 2526.90 37.58a With seed hoe 17 8. 7 c 4.1a 0.82a 2728.74 40.57a With seed disc 117. 6ab 5.2b 1. 52c 2701.82 40.19a Seeded May 14, 45 kg/ha 23-24-0 was applied; 10. 35 kg/ha (9.2 lb/acre) N 1987 Deep banded hoe 157.3a 4.67b 0.93ab 1408. 80 21.0c Deep handed disc 131.8ab S.9a o. 90b 1731. 70 25.80ab Side banded hoe 148.9ab 4.6b 1. 01ah 1558.80 23.20abc Side banded disc 131.1ab 4.6b 1.1Sa 1513.10 22.50bc With seed hoe 121.9b 4.2c 0.85b 1832.60 27.30a With seed disc 123.8b 4.5bc 0.79b 1722.9 25.60ab Seeded May 5, 155 kg/ha 26-13-0 was applied; 40.3 kg/ha (35.9 lb/acre) N 1983-87 Avg. Deep banded hoe 1331.3 19.7ab Deep banded disc 1376.9 20.4ab Side banded hoe 1375.3 20.4ab Side banded disc 1308.5 19.4b With seed hoe 1452.6 21.6a With seed disc 1438.0 21.3ab 1983-1987 With seed hoe - disc avg. 1445.3 21. Sa Deep banded hoe - disc avg. 1354.1 20.lb Side banded hoe - disc avg. 1341.9 19.9b Means with the same letter are not significantly different (5% significance level). 142 Table 4. Dry Year (1984-85) Yield Data Treatment With seed hoe - disc avg. Deep banded hoe - disc avg. Side banded hoe - disc avg. kg/ha 567.9 459.6 420.1 bu/acre 8.4a 6. 8ab 6.2b In the data (Table 3) there is little difference between hoe and disc drill treatments. Therefore, the two were averaged (Table 3 last part and Table 4) for part of the analysis. At all times it was possible to seed place the required fertilizer without serious injury to the seed. Plant counts were never seriously af-fected, even in the dry years of 1984 and 1985. Yields were somewhat better (about 100 kg/ha) for the seed placed treatment, on the average, and for the dry years 1,984 and 1985 (Tables 3 and 4). The possible reason may be the loss of soil moisture due to deep band-ing (5" deep) and side banding, which requires extra depth to get the seed to moisture. Since yield differences are not great, the cost of the treatments and time required to perform them are the main factors to be considered. The extra cost of side banding is not great ($2/ha), but the extra cost of deep banding is very significant ($17/ha). On the other hand, the extra time and inconvenience of handling larger volumes of fertilizer at seeding time is a facto'r many producers do not like. In terms of optimizing profit (or minimizing loss), placing the ferti-lizer with the seed is the preferred treatment for the Brown soil zone. In areas where moisture is more abundant and greater amounts of nitrogen are required, the side banding treatment may be worth considering. CONCLUSIONS .Seed placement of fertilizer is the most profitable method of placing fertilizer in the Brown soil zone. It produced the highest yield, particu-larly in dry years, and has the lowest cost of operation. For a continuous wheat rotation in southwest Saskatchewan, the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus required by soil test recommendations can usually be seed placed without loss of yield if ammonium phosphate fertilizers are used. 143 1. Harapiak, J. 1982. REFERENCES 1982. Fertilizer Forum #67. The Country Guide, March, 2. Payton, D.M., Hyde, G.M. and Simpson, J.B. 1985. Equipment and methods for no-till wheat planting. Transactions of ASAE 28(5): 1419-1429. 3. Veseth, R., McDole, R., Engle, C. and Vomocil, J. 1986. Fertilizer band location for cereal root access. Pacific North West Exten-sion Publication PNW283. 4. s·elles, F., Campbell, C.A., Zentner, R.P. and Dyck, F.B. 1986. Effect of fertilizer nitrogen on spring wheat production on a zero-tillage snow trap system in the Brown Soil Zone. In Proc., 1986 Soils & Crops Workshop, Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask. 144 

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/10810/1/F.B.%20Dyck%20and%20S.%20Tessier%2c%201988b.pdf

Methods of applying ammonium phosphate fertilizer in a continuous wheat rotation in southwest Saskatchewan

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@USASK

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive