Karamanos, R.

English

eCommons@USASK

Fall and spring placement of nitrogen fertilizers. Where do enhanced efficiency fertilizers fit?

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

Fall and Spring Placement of Nitrogen Fertilizers. Where do Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers Fit?Rigas KaramanosIntroductionThere are three mechanisms of nitrogen (N) losses depictedbelow:Ammonia volatilization occurs due to hydrolysis causing arapid rise in pH around unprotected urea granule. The high pHresults in more ammonia:There are a number of recommended practices to reducevolatilization• Use of urease inhibitors (Watson,1990)1• Slow-release forms (Rao, 1987)2, and,• Irrigation shortly after application (Holcomb et al., 2011)3• Most common - incorporation of the fertilizer into the soil (Harapiak et al. 1986)4.Koch Fertilizer Canada, Calgary, AB, Ammoniacal N from urea is retained in the soilbecause of a resistance in upward diffusion (Sommeret al., 2004)5.• Zero till urea or UAN bands in one-pass systems are seldom more than 1 1/2" - 2" deep.  • Shallow placement of nitrogen may cause higher losses.  • The belief that if "it's in the soil it's safe" may be misguided.  • New research is indicating that shallow banded urea and UAN are susceptible to volatilization losses.What is new?Benefit of deep banding1. Watson et al. 1990. Effectiveness of the urease inhibitor NBPT (N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide) for improving the efficiency of urea for ryegrass production. Fert. Res. 24: 11-15.2. Rao, D.L.N. 1987. . Slow-release urea fertilizers — effect on floodwater chemistry, ammonia volatilization and rice growth in an alkali soil. Fert. Res. 13: 209-221.3. Holcomb, J.C. et al. 2011. Effect of irrigation rate on ammonia volatilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75:2341-47.4. 4. Harapiak, J. L. et al. 1986. Nitrogen sources and placement in wheat production. p. 87-135 in A.E. Slinkard and D.B. Fowler (eds.) Wheat Production in Canada – A Review. Proc. Can. Wheat Production Symposium. Div. of Extension and Community Relation, Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.5. Sommer, S.G., et al. 2004. Ammonia emission from mineral fertilizers and fertilized crops. Adv. Agron. 82:557–622.6. Rochette, P. et al. 2009. Banding of Urea Increased Ammonia Volatilization in a Dry Acidic Soil. J. Environ. Qual. 38:1383–1390.7. Rochette, P. et al. 2013.. Ammonia Volatilization and Nitrogen Retention: How Deep to Incorporate Urea? J. Environ. Qual. 42:1635–1642References• Some of the pioneer work on shallow banding was carried out by Nyborg (1986)  as quoted by Harapiak et al. (1986)4.• Work involves research by Rochette and coworkers (2009 and 2013)6,7.  • Also, demonstrations in Ontario and Manitoba• http://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/cropadvances.htm• https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/afs/agronomists_conf/media/2013_Heard_measuring_ammonia_lossesDec_4.pdfWhy the interest now?• Fluctuating prices of nitrogen fertilizer and crops• Efforts to reduce NH3 and N2O emissions, and nutrient leaching and run-off• Long periods from application to crop demand • Susceptible to loss• Enhanced Efficiency FertilizersAGROTAIN is a registered trademark of Koch Agronomic Services, LLC.  Background on shallow bandingEnhanced Efficiency [Fertilizer] describes fertilizer products with characteristics that allow increased [nutrient availability] and reduce potential of nutrient losses to the environment e.g., gaseous losses, leaching or runoff when compared to an appropriate reference product. (Tentative 2015, Association of American Plant Food Control Officials)Types of EEF• Uncoated slowly available fertilizers containing N, e.g., urea-aldehyde condensation products (e.g., urea-formaldehyde reaction products, IBDU), triazines, etc.• Physical coating or barrier around soluble N fertilizer, e.g., SCU, PCU, combination products• Stabilizers, e.g., nitrification and urease inhibitorsField research program• Five sites in 2014, seven in 2015 and seven in 2016• Three products (Urea, Urea + AGROTAIN® stabilizer, SUPERU fertilizer)• Three placements (broadcast, two depths of banding)• Twp placement times in 2015 and 2016 (fall and spring)• Two rates, recommended and 70% of recommended• Replicated four timesOverall statistical effects• Spring treatments• Fall treatmentsDeep banding remains the standard placement method of urea-based fertilizers.However, as the farm size increases, farm operators are seeking operationalefficiencies, often at the expense of agronomic efficiencies. The results of thisproject support the use of nitrogen stabilizers to minimize the risk of nitrogenlosses when deep banding placement is replaced with either shallow banding orbroadcast.AGROTAINand SUPERU are registered trademarks of Koch Agronomic Services, LLC.  Key Results and DiscussionMethod of placementYield increase (kg ha-1)4 Trials 8 TrialsShallow mix 915 1614Deep mix 130 1776Shallow band 1130Deep band 1400Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers (EEF)The underly ing data was provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and neither Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, nor the indiv idual researchers referenced, endorse or recommend any product or service.0510152025300 5 10 15 20 25 30Cumulative N Loss (% of applied N)Days After ApplicationBanded (5 cm deep)Broadcast/incorporatedBroadcastUrea with AGROTAIN® stabilizer -1001020304050600–7  7-14  14-21  21-25 TotalNH3loss (%of N applied)Days after applicationSurface 2.5 cm 5 cm 7.5 cm 10 cm• Field study. Measurements taken Aug. 9 to Sept. 3, 2010• Le Bras silt loam soil; pH 5.5• Nitrogen rate of 164 kg N ha-1• Treatments were banded at 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 cm deep• Source: Rochette et al., 2013. Journal of Environmental Quality.02468101214160 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 16NH3loss (%of N applied)Da ys f rom N a pp lica tionThe underlying data was provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and neither Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, nor the individual researchers referenced, endorse or recommend any product or service.Effects All + fallsite 0.002 0.018site*placetime 0.011 0.004site*treatment 0.000 0.000site*placetime*trt 0.146 0.001Fall broadcasting SUPERU® fertilizer resulted in an average yield increase of 13.5% over fall broadcasting untreated ureaCanola Yield Benefit with Fall Broadcasting SUPERU®The underlying data was provided by the University of Alberta, W heatland Conservation Area, Indian Head Agricultural ResearchFoundation, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreement with Koch Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor the individual researcher, endorse or recommend any product or service.  • Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba010203040506070NARF16WCA16WCA15Domain16Brunkild16Breton15NARF15IHARF15U of S16IHARF16U of S15Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearFall Broadcast SUPERU® vs. Untreated UreaAverage 13.5%• Fall broadcasting SUPERU® fertilizer resulted in similar yield performance compared to spring deep banding untreated urea, which is considered a standard practice in western Canada • Fall broadcasting SUPERU® fertilizer offers operational advantages (please, visit: http://kochagronomicservices.kcgdev.com/can/calculator/)Canola Yield Benefit with Fall Broadcasting SUPERU®The underlying data was provided by the University of Alberta, W heatland Cons ervation Area, Indian Head Agricultural ResearchFoundation, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreementwith Koch Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor the individual researcher, endorse or recommend any produc t or service. • Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-40-30-20-1001020304050Brunkild16NARF15IHARF15Domain16IHARF16WCA16NARF16WCA15U of S16Breton15U of S15Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearFall Broadcast SUPERU ® vs. Spring Deep Banded UreaAverage 3.4%Canola Yield Benefit with Fall Broadcasting SUPERU®The underlying data was provided by the University of Alberta , Wheatland Conservation Area, Indian Head Agricultural ResearchFoundation, Northeastern Agricul tural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Res earch Trial Financial Support Agreementwith Koch Agronomic Services,  LLC and neither the  research institution nor the individual researcher, endorse or recommend any product or s ervice.• Fall broadcasting SUPERU®fertilizer resulted in an average yield increase of 6.8% over fall broadcasting AGROTAIN®stabilized urea • SUPERU® fertilizer outperformed AGROTAIN® stabilized urea most likely due to the need for a nitrification inhibitor, especially during snowmelt in the spring• Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-10-505101520253035WCA16Brunkild16IHARF16NARF15NARF16IHARF15Domain16WCA15U of S15U of S16Breton15Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearFall Broadcast SUPERU® vs. Agrotain® Stabilized Urea  Average 6.8%Fall broadcasting AGROTAIN®stabilized urea resulted in an average yield increase of 6.8% over fall broadcasting untreated ureaCanola Yield Benefit with Fall Broadcasting AGROTAIN® Stabilized UreaThe underlying data was provided  by the University of Alberta, Wheatland Conservation Area, Indian Head Agricultural ResearchFoundation, Northeastern Agricultu ral Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreement with Koc h Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor t he individual researcher, endorse or recommend any product or service.  • Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-20-1001020304050Breton15WCA15Domain16U of S16NARF16IHARF15WCA16Brunkild16NARF15IHARF16U of S15Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearFall Broadcast Agrotain® Stabilized Urea vs. Untreated UreaAverage 6.8%Spring broadcasting of SUPERU®fertilizer resulted in an average of 13.0 % yield increase over spring broadcasting of untreated ureaCanola Yield Benefit with Spring Broadcasting SUPERU®The underlying data was provided by the University of Alberta, Wheatland Conservation Area, Indian Head Agricultural ResearchFoundation, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreement with Koch Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor the individual researcher, endorse or recommend any product or service.  • Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-100102030405060WCA16NARF15WCA14U of S15NARF16Carman15Kelburn14Domain16Brunkild16IHARF14Oak Bluff15U of S16IHARF16Carman14Breton14WCA15Breton15Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearBroadcast SUPERU® vs. Untreated UreaAverage 13.0%Spring shallow banding of SUPERU®fertilizer resulted in an average of 4.8 % yield increase over spring shallow banding of untreated ureaCanola Yield Benefit with spring shallow banding SUPERU®The underlying data was provided by the University of Alberta, Wheatland Conservation Area, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreementwith Koch Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor the individual researcher, endorse or recommend any product or service.  • Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-15-10-505101520WCA14Carman15U of S15WCA15IHARF14U of S16Breton14NARF15Oak Bluff15Domain16Kelburn14NARF16WCA16Brunkild16IHARF16Breton15Carman14Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearShallow Banded SUPERU® vs. Untreated UreaAverage 4.8%Spring broadcasting of Agrotain®stabilized urea resulted in an average of 11.9% yield increase over spring broadcasting of untreated ureaCanola Yield Benefit with Spring Broadcasting AGROTAIN® Stabilized UreaThe underl ying data was provided by the Universi ty of Alberta, Wheatland Conservati on Area, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreementwith Koch Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor the individual res earcher, endorse or recommend any product or service.  • Average results for canola across eleven si tes in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-10010203040506070WCA14Domain16U of S16WCA16IHARF14NARF16Kelburn14U of S15Carman15Oak Bluff15Brunkild16Carman14NARF15IHARF16WCA15Breton15Breton14Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearBroadcast AGROTAIN® Treated Urea vs. Untreated UreaAverage 11.9%Spring shallow banding of Agrotain®stabilized urea resulted in an average of 3.6% yield increase over spring shallow banding of untreated ureaCanola Yield Benefit with Spring Shallow Banding AGROTAIN® Stabilized UreaThe underlying data was provided by the University of Alberta, Wheatland Conservation Area, Indian Head Agricultural ResearchFoundation, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation, and the University of Manitoba under a Research Trial Financial Support Agreement with Koch Agronomic Services, LLC and neither the research institution nor the individual researcher, endorse or recommend any product or service.  • Average results for canola across eleven sites in 2015-16 (AB, SK, and MB) • N applied at rate recommended for each site• Source: Myles Dick, Edmonton, University of Alberta; Bryan Nebo, Wheatland Conservation Area; Chris Holzapfel, Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation; Stewart Brandt, Northeastern Agricultural Research Foundation and Mario Tenuta, University of Manitoba-10-50510152025WCA14Carman15U of S15Kelburn14WCA15U of S16Breton15IHARF14Oak Bluff15WCA16Brunkild16Breton14IHARF16Carman14NARF16Domain16NARF15Average% Yield differenceResearch site/YearShallow Banded AGROTAIN® Treated Urea vs. Untreated UreaAverage 3.6%

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/12007/1/R.%20Karamanos%2c%202019.pdf

Fall and spring placement of nitrogen fertilizers. Where do enhanced efficiency fertilizers fit?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@USASK

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive