1971 Soil Plant Nutrient Research Report

1 \l 71

SO II. PI.J\NT NUTH I ENT l{ESKI\IU'll H l<:POHT

PHOGIU\M COOHD I NJ\TOH H. J . V. SCIII\PP I·:Irl'

Irrigation Studies J.L. Henry and E de Jo.ng

Potassium Studies J.L. Henry and H.J.V. Schappe:tt Rapeseed Studies E.H. Halstead and E. A. Paul

Irradiation of Vegetable Seeds D.A. Rennie Soil Productivity Studies

K.W.

Ayres Soil Testing Correlations J

.w.

^Hamm

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report summarizes the field research investigations on soil t'ertil ity carried out during .1971 by the staff of

the Department of Soil Srience, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. These investigations were supported by research grants from the following source~: The Sa~katchewan Depart- ment of Agriculture; The Patriotic Acre Fund; the Saskatchewan Agri<"ultural Hesear<"h Foundation; Western Co-operative

Fertil iz.ers Limited through their prinicpals the Saskat<"hewan Wheat Pool and Federated Co-operatives Limited; Sherritt

Gordon Mines Limited; The Sulphur Institute, and the National Hesear<"h Coun<'il.

In soil fertility research, it is vital to conduct

experiments under a wide variety of soil and climatic conditions.

Almost all of the investigations were carried out on individ- ual farms throughout the province. Without the generous

<'O-operation of the many farmers involved, i t would be

impossible to conduct research of this type. A sincere thank- you is extended to all farmers who put up with considerable in<'onvenien<"e to a<"commodate these experiments.

The Industrial Division, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool

<'onducted all the oil analysis on rapeseed samples and a

thankyou is extended to Mr. J.R. Reynolds, Technical Manager for this valuable assistance.

The project in the irrigation area is a co-operative project between the Department of Soil Science and the Conservation and Development Branch of the Saskatchewan

i i

Development Branch of the Saskat<'hewan Department of

Art Bristol and Dennis Roll provided valuable a s s i s t a 11 l • e i n s i t e s e .I e <' t i o n an d s u p <' I' v i s i ( l n " r r i < • I d o I'(' 1· -

ations. Glen Werner was a summet· assistant with lhc

proje<"t and with the assistan<"e 1of Brian Lyn<"h, took <'<ll'E> of

a l l m o i s t u r e read i n g s , water a p p!l i <·at i on and p I o t m a~ n ten-

an<'e. Dwayne Climenhaga and Wayne Handall designed the sprinkler systems used on the water control experiments.

Ma 11 y other sup n r vi so r y p e I' son n e 1 and t e <' h n i cal ass i s t an l s helped with various aspe<·ts

or

the pt'oje<·l.

The project on low dose irradiation of vegetable seeds was a joint project with the Department of Horticulture Science, University of Saskatche,wan. All seeding and harvesting operations for this project were conducted by personnel from the Horticulture Science Department.

The soil productivity study in the Swift Current map area is a joint project with the Canada Department of

Agri<'ulture Hesear<'h Station at Swift Current. Personnel from that station aided in selection, harvested all forage plots and threshed and weighed the wheat samples and did the

protein analyses.

The major responsibility for the seeding and harvesting operations for the irrigation experiments was carried by

Darwyn M<'Kenzie, David Ehman accepted similar responsibilities for the rapeseed experiments. Other assistants who aided in various projects were Barry Hodge, Greg Mulatz, Tom Boyle and Ron Clark.

i i i

!!.LK!!J..._i_g_htH oi the J!l71 i:loil Fer·tility Hesear<"h Program

1. Studies with irrigated crops indicated clearly that the level of nitrogen available for plant growth is a major factor influencing the yields of irrigated crops.

Additions of fertilizer nitrogen will often be required to overcome defi<"ien<"ies ir: 'the soil supply but this is not always the case. Soil testing will be important in determining nutrient requirements for irrigated crops.

The soil supplies of potassium and sulphur appear to be adequate for soft wheat, barley and rapeseed but the data on these nutrients is i m i ted.

2. Lea<'hing losses of nitrogen, as nitrates, can occur under irrigated conditions. It is unlikely that such losses will be severe if rates of addition of fertilizer nitrogen do not greatly exceed crop requirements.

3. Potassium placement experiments showed much greater efficiency with seed placed and side-band placements than for broadcast treatments. Rapeseed showed only small response (about 3 bu/acre) on a site where barley yields were greatly increased by potassium fertilization.

Seed pla<"ed potassium at rates of 60 lb K₂0/acre reduced germination and emergence of rapeseed and barley but did not reduce the final yield.

4. Rapeseed grown on summerfallow showed variable response to nitrogen fertilization and average application rates greater than 25 lb/acre of N do not appear economical based on data obtained in 1971. An apparent response of rapeseed to sulphur fertilization occurred at three

iv

of 10 sites. The effect of sulphur fertilization on r ape s e e d y i e 1 d an d qual i t y w i J 1 b e c o n t i n u e d i n 1 ~l 7 2

on sites selected on the basis of low levels of available soil_ sulphur.

Increasing rates of nitrogen and nitrogen plus sulphur resuLted in small J'eouctions in oil ('Ontent and s m a Jl in c r e a s e s i n pro t e i n (' o n t en t o [ rape s e e d at m o s t lo<·ations. These differences in quality, however, were not as great as those obtained at various slope positions within a single field.

5. Seed irradiation, using dosages ranging from 100-1250 rads, did not alter yield or quality of four vegetable cultivars. Significant decreases in uptake of a mobile

(N) and non-mobile (P) nutrient oc<·urred in a random and irregular pattern, as a result of seed irradiati~n.

Estimates of efficiency of crop uptake of f e r t i l i z e r Nand P underline the need for f e r t i l i z e r management studies for onion, carrots and cabbage in par·ti<·ular to determine whether the comparatively low efficiency

values can be increased using alternative placement or time of application.

H. Soil productivity studies in the Swift Current map area showed great differences in yield for different soil profiles within single fields. Further work will be required to relate these differences to measured soil properties.

v

1971 SOtJ, PLANT NUTHIENT HJo:.SE/\ltCll HEPOirr Table of Contents

.1. NUTRIENT AND WATEH HEQUIHEMENTS OF IHRIGATED CROPS 1.1 Nutrient requirements o( soft wheat, barley

and rape seed • . . • . • • . . • . ~ . • . • . • • . • . • • . • • . . . . • • • • •

1.2 Nutrient requirements of a l f a l f a . . . 34 1.3 Residual nitrogen at the end of growing

season . . . . 38 1.4 Water use and irrigation scheduling . . • • . • . . • • . • 46 2. POTASSIUM PLACEMENT FOR BARLEY AND RAPESEED . . • . . • • . 55 3. NUTHJ ENT HEQUIHEMENTS OF HAPESEED

3.1 The effect of phosphate fertilization on the

yield and quality of rapeseed •• ••.•• •• •.•••.••• 60 3.2 The effect of nitrogen and sulphur fertilization

on the yield and quality of r a p e s e e d . . . 63 3 • :i The e f f e c t o f pot ass i u m ,1 s u I ph u r and b o ron on

the yield and quality o~ rapeseed • • . • • • • • . • . . • . 73 3.4 The effect of soil and climate on rapeseed

quality . . . • . . . . 76 3.5 Nitrogen utilization and growth characteristics

of rapeseed . . . • . . . . 78

4. LOW DOSE IRRADIATION OF VEGETABLE CROPS... 86 5. SOILPHODUCTIVITY STUDIES OF THE SWIFT CURHENT

MAP AH EA • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 1

o

⁷

6 • APPEND I C~ ES . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . • . • 1 1 t!

7. SELECTED PAPEHS . . . • . 1 1 8 7.1 Revision of Nitrogen and Phosphorus requirement

guidelines and generation of expected yield increase data for soil testing (by J.W. Hamm,

E . H . Ha 1 s tea d and J . L . Henry ) . . . • • • . . . • . . . • . . • • • l 1 8

vi

Table l . l . l

Tab 1 e l . l • 2

Table l . l . 3

Table 1.1.4

Tab l e 1 • 1 • 5

Tab J e l • 1. 6

Table 1.1.7

Table 1.1.8

Tab 1 e l • 1. 9

LIST OF TABLES

Fertility treatments used in the water control experiments (Davison and

Anderson sites) • • • . • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • . • • ••

Fertility treatments used in the field experiments • • • . . • • ~ • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • . • ••

Site characteristics of soils selected for the field experiments •••••.•••••••••' • •••

The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and

N

content of straw of soft wheat for Elstow soil (Anderson site) The effect of nitrogen fertilization on

the yield and protein (~ontent of gr·ain and the yield and N <·ontent of straw of soft wheat for Asquith soil (Davison site) The effect of nitrogen fertilization on

the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and

N

content of straw of soft wheat for the field experiments • • • . . • • • • • • . The effect of nitrq_gep fertilization on

the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and

N

content of straw of barley for the Elstow soil (Anderson site) •••••

The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and N content of straw of barley for the Asquith soil (Davison site) ••••••

The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and N content of straw of barley for the field experiments • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • Tab I e I • 1 • 1 0 The e f r e c t of nitrogen fer t i l i z at ion on

yie.ld, protein content and oil <"ontent of Oro rapeseed (Anderson site) • . • . • . • • . . • Table l .1 .11 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on

yield, protein content and oil content of Oro rapeseed (Davison site) ••••••••••••

Table 1.1.12 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield, protein content and oil content of rapeseed (field experiments) • . • • • . • . • Table 1.1.13 The effect of time of application of

nitrogen on the yield and protein content of soft wheat . . . . Table 1.1.14 The effect of time of application of

nitrogen on the yield and protein content of barley . . . .

vii

3

6

7

8

~)

10

13

14

l 5

18

19

24

25

List of Tables Continued

Tallie 1.1.15 The f~ff'ec·t. of timP of application of

nitr·ogen on the yield, protein <'Ontent and ^o i 1 (' o n t. en t o r I' n p e s e e d • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'I' a b l e .1 • l • l 6 The e r f e c t o r t i me o r a p p I i ('at i on o r n i t r· o g en

on the uptake of nitrogen by wheat, ba1·le~'

and I' apes e e d , as determined us in g N I !J • • • • • • ~ ~ Tab 1 e l • l • l 7 The e f f e c t o f add i t ~ on a l phosphorus

application on the yield and protein content

of soft wheat, barley and rapeseed • • • • • • . • • 30 Table 1.1.18 The effect of potassium and sulfur ferti-

lization on the yield and protein <'Ontent of soft wheat

...

Table 1.1.19 The effect o{ potassium and sulfur ferti- lization on the yield and protein content

31

of barley •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• -.... ^3'.!

Table 1.1.20 The effect of potassium and sulfur ferti- lization on t~e'yield, protein and oil

content of rapeseed .••••••••••••••••••••• 33

Table 1.2.1 Site characteristict> of soils selected for Table 1.2.2

Table J • 2.;. 3

'I' a IJ I e I • :! • 1

Tab I e I • 3. 1

Table 1.3.2

Table 1.4.1 Table 1.4.2

Table 1.4.3

Table 1.4.4 Table 1.4;.5

irrigated alfalfa study • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 35 Pertility treatments used for afalfa

The e r ^f e c t o f ph o s ph o r u s , and o the r n u t r i e n t_ s on the yield of alfalfa •••••••••.•••.••••••

The e r r e < • t o I' ph o s ph o 1· u s ·and o t h P r· n u t r i e n t s

on the protein <·ont.ent of alfalfa

Hesul ts or faJ I soil sampling for field experiments

Residual nitrate nitrogen levels from

various rates of application of Pitrogen for water control experiments

Calibration curves ~or the neutron pr6bes used in the irrigation project ••••••••••••••••••

Moisture retention (% volume) of Asquith and Elstow soils for the water control

experiments

...

Undisturbed bulk densities (mean and standard error) of the Asquith and Elstow soils for the water control experiments

Seasonal wat~r use of barley, rapeseed and wheat on the Asquith and Elstow plots ••••••

Percent of water use from various depths in the soil profile

...

viii

. I 0

41

43 47

48

51 53

Table 1.4.6

Table ~.1.1

Table 2.1.2 Table 2.1.3

Table 2.1.4

Table 2.1.5

Table 3.1.1

Table 3.1.2

Ta lJ I e :~ . I . :~

Table 3.1.4

Table 3.~.1

Taule :~.:.L2

Taule 3.2.3

Tab 1 e :l • 2 • 1

Tab 1 e :~ • 2 • 5

Table 3.2.6

Table 3.2.7

Table 3.2.8

List of Tables Continued

Water use of alfalfa, barley, rapeseed and wheat on various plots during different

parts of the growing season • . . . • • . . . • . • . . . . Soil chararteristics of sites sele<'ted for potassium study .••.. . • • . . • • . . ... • . • • . . . Treatments used for potassium experiments The effect of seed-~laced potash on the germination of Echo rapeseed and Conquest barley • • • . . . • . . . . • . • • • ^o • • • • • • • • • • • o o o • • • •

The effect of potassium fertilization on the yield, protein and oil content of Echo rape s e e d ( Ko z u n s i t e ) • • . . . . ^{0 • • • • • • •} The effert of potassium fertilization on the yield and protein content of barley The effect of phosphate on the yield and quality of Zephyr rapeseed • • • • o • • • • • • • • • •

The effect of phosphate on the yi.el d and quaJ i ty of Span rapeseed ••• o • • • • • • • • • • o • •

To t a 1 n i t r o g en u p t

a

^{k e b y} Z e ph y r r· ape s e e d for phosphate rate experiment - Johnson farm

Total nitrogen uptake by Span rapeseed for phosphate rate experiment - Johnson farm

The effect of nitrogen and sulphur on yield of rapeseed

The effect of nitrogen and sulphur on the protein content of rapeseed • • • • • o • • • • • • • •

The effect of nitrogen and. sulphur on the protein content of rapeseed

The effect of nitrogen and sulphur on the o i I f 1·ee p 1·o te in ('On tent of rapeseed

Average yield and quality data for Argentine rapeseed varieties • • • . . .

Average yield and quality data for Polish rapeseed varieties

Total nitrogen uptake by Zephyr rapeseed - Johnson 1 plot • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Total nitrogen uptake by Span rapeseed - Johnson 2 plot • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ix

54

55 56

57

58

no

nJ

(

.

_)~ ^{' )}

(:)()

G7

68

(; ~)

70

70

71

72

Table ~I.;:l.J

1.1 H t o I' '1'iib I <•H Conti ^tlUfHl

Average yie.ld and quality data for Zephyr rapeseed for· potaRRium, Hulphur and boron

exper1mentH • .. • • • . . • . . . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 74 Table 3.:;1.2 Average yield and quality data for Span

rapeseed for potassjum, sulphur and boron experiments

...

^'

...

^'

... .

Table 3.3.3 Total nitrogen uptake by Zephyr rapeseed for the potassium, !sulphur and boron experi-

74

ments ·~···•1...

75

Table 3.3.4 Total nitrogen uptake by Span rapeseed for the potassium, sulphur and boron experi- Table 3.4.1

Table 3.5.1 Table 3.5.2 Table 3.5.3 Table 4.1.1 Table 4.1.2

ments

...

Effect of profile type on oil and protein content of target rapeseed

Yield of plant material on small plots and larger plots of rapeseed • • • . • . • . • . • • • • • . . . • Effect of row positions and time of sampling on fertilizer uptake of two rape cultivars ••

Uptake of soil N and A value for rapeseed grown on

summerfall~~ ···~···

Analytical data on soils selected for

vegetable seed irradiation project •••••.•••

Average stand, yield and head measurements

of <·ab bage . . . • . • . . . • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • .

Table ·1.1.:'1 Average yield parameters with four replicates of onions

...

Table 4.1.·1 A\iet·age yield parametet·s from four replicates Table 4 .1. 5

Table 4 .1. 6 Table 4 .1. 7

Table 4 . I . 8

Table 4 . l . 9

of corn

...

^"

... .

Atom %excess 15N over 0.36496

...

^'

....

^,

Effect of seed irradiation on total N content

Effect of seed irradiation on % N d . f . f . Effect of seed irradiation on nitrogen 'A' values

...

^'

... .

Effect of seed irradiation on total P

content

...

^'

...

Table 4.1.10 Effect of .p content

seed irradiation on fertilizer Table 4.1.11 Effect of seed irradiation on phosphorus 'A'

values

Table 4.1.12 Effect of seed irradiation on Nand P uptake (mean values of data for all vegetables and both soils)

X

75

76

81

82

8Q 87 89

8H

DO 92 93 94 95 97

98 99

101

List of Tables Continued

Table 4.1.13 Uptake of vegetable

fertilizer Nand cultivars

P

by foUr

Table 4.1.14 Vegetable crop utilization of fertilizer N and P (Bradwell) , • • • . • • • . • • • • • . • • • • •..

Table 5.1.1 Summary of data fro$ productivity study on wheat • . . . • . . . . • . . . • . • . Table 5.1.2 Summary of data fro~ productivity study on

10:2

1 () ·1

110

forage···~··· · ··· 110 Table 5.1.3 Nutrient requirement tables

for

Brown soil

zone • • . . • • . • • . . . • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • 11:2 Table 5.1.4 Legal locations of sites fqr produ('tivity

Table n . l . l

study

The erfect of nitrogen and sulphur app.lica- tion on the yield of Betzes barley • • • . . • • • . •

xi

] 13

I I ·1

LIST OF FIGUHES

Figure 1.1.1 The effect of nitrogen (ertilization on the yield and protein content of soft

wheat • • • • • • • • • • • • 1• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 1 J

Figure 1.1.2 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protPin content of barley Vigure 1 .1.3 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on

the yield, oiJ and protei.n content

or

rapeseed

...

Figu~e 3.5.1 Nitrogen content of rapeseed ~egetation

lt)

21

at five sampling dates . . . • • . • . . . • • . • . • • • • • 83 Figure 3.5.2 Uptake of soil and fertilizer nitrogen

by rapeseed . . . . 84 Figure 5.1.1 Detailed soil series map • • • . • • • • . . • • . . • . • . 109

xii

1. NUTHIENT 1\J~D WATEH HEQUIHI·:Ml<~NTS OF lHHIGJ\TED CI{OPS

OUJ ECT l V ES

- - -·---

( 1 ) To pro v ide guide ! i n e s on fer t i. 1 i z e r and water i n put

required to produce maximum e<"onomic yields under irrigation for soft wheat, barley, rapesPed and alfalfa,

(2) To assess the effect of irrigation scheduling and nutrient levels (particularly of nitrogen) on the quality of the crops produced,

(3) To establish guidelines for target yield estimations.

1.1 Nutrient requirements of sof~ wheat, barley and rapeseed EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

Par the crops rapeseed, soft wheat and barley two types of experiments were conducted. The first series o f experi- ments, referred to in this report as 'water control experi- ments', was conducted with three different irrigat ion

schedu.Jes and on two different soils. The so ^{i I} s r or t hi s series of experiments were an Asquith very fine sandy loam (Davison farm) and an Elstow loam (Anderson fa~m).

The three levels of water applied were as fol lows:

(1) Water 1 treatment - Irrigation water was applied when the moisture tension reached 0.5 atmospheres (Asquith soil) or

1.0 atmospheres (EJstow soil).

(~) Water 2 treat.ment Irrigation water was appJ ied approx- imately 1 week later than for the Water l treatment , if rainfall during the intervening week was not sufficient to bring the soil back up to field capacity,

(3) Water 3 treatment - Was the dryland treatment. The dry- land treatment did receive an initial application of approx-

-

^~

-

imately 1" of water. This application was applied to all water treatments approximately 2 weeks after seeding.

Tensiometers were installed in fertility treatments 1, 4 and 6 (Table l.l.l) of the Water l treatment. The

tensiometers were installed at the 6" depth initially and were lowered to the 9" depth during the season. Neutron access tubes were installed in fertility treatments 1, 4 and 6 of both the Water 1 and Water 2 treatments. Neutron meter readings were taken before and after each application of irrigation water.

Irrigation water was applied, on these experiments, with a specially designed sprinkler system. This sprinkler

system allowed separate water applications to the three different crops and to the Water 1 and Water 2 treatments.

In the water control experiments the varieties used were Oro rapeseed, Centennial barley (a two-row variety) and Lemhi 62 soft wheat. The fertility treatments used on the water control experiments are presented in Table 1.1. l . An application of 11-55-0 at a rate to supply 40 lb P 20_{5 /acre} was made on all treatments. Additional nitrogen was broad- cast. as ammonium nitrate just prior to seeding at rates up to 300 lb N/acre. In addition, separate treatments were

made where a portion of the nitrogen was broadcast at seeding time and the remainder was applied later on in the growing

l5 .

season. In treatment 9,

N

labelled ammon1um nitrate was utilized to augment the information on split applications.

Other treatments included additional phosphorus applications, potassium and sulfur applications. Originally, a plot was

Table I . I . I Fe I' t i I i I y treatments USPd ill lhf' Wilt f ' l '

<·ontrol e x p e I' i m e n t s (Davison <tlld /\nde1·son sites).

N u t t· i en t s /\pplied Treatment Pounds per A<"re

- - - ---··- - ----~--·--

---

- - - - -

Number Nl

P205 K 0

~

s

l 0 40 0 0

~ 25 40 0 0

3 50 40 0 0

4 75 40 ⁽⁾ 0

5 100 40 0

u

6 150 40 ^{() ()}

7 ~00 40 ⁽⁾ 0

8 300 40 ^{() ()}

gf\2 75 + ^{75 10 () ()}

gB 75 + ^{75 40 () ()}

10 3 50 + ^{50 40 0 ()}

11 75 + ^{75 40 () 0}

12 150 40 + ^{115 0 0}

13 150 40 120 170

- · · - - - -·

1 All N rates are in ammonium phosphate

addition to the nitrogen in the (ll-55-0) used~ The nitrogen

2

;3

sourre was ammonium nitrate except for treatment 13 where ammonium sulphate was used.

Treatment 9A- 75 lbs N/acre as Nl5 tagged N was applied at seeding and 75 1bs N/acre as non-tagged N was applied on June 24.

Treatment 9B- 75 lbs N/acre as non-tagged N was applied at seeding and 75 1 bs N/a<·re as Nl5 tagged N was applied on June 24.

On treatments 10 and 11 one-half of the nitrogen was applied at seeding time and the remainder was

applied in late June.

- 4 -

set aside for micronutrient applications but these were not made.

The fertility treatments were replicated 4 times.

Heavy weed infestations were encountered at both sites. Avadex was applied and incorporated before seeding.

2,4-D (Amine) was used for broadleaf weed control. For the rapeseed at the Davison site only, Tok and TCA were

utilized for the control of russian thistle and green foxtail.

Good control of green foxtail was obtained but the control of russian thistle was incomplete.

Lindane was used to treat the seed of rapeseed for flea beetle control and no flea beetle damage occurred. At the Anderson site severe infestations of both grasshoppers and beet webworm severely damaged the rapeseed plots.

A second series of experiments, referred to subsequently as field experiments, was conducted. in which only one level of water was applied.

were as follows;

The varieties used in these experiments

Barley - Conquest Soft Wheat - Lemhi 62

Rapeseed - Oro rapeseed at the Niska site - Echo rapeseed at the Kroeker site.

For the field experiments a detailed moisture budget was not maintained. Experiments were laid down at three

locations for each of the three crops. Yield data was obtained on three locations for barley and two locations each for

rapeseed and soft wheat. All preceding tillage and seeding operations were conducted by the co-operating farmers.

- 5 -

Phosphorus was applied seed-placad at all locations.

The fertility treatments (Table l.l.2)included a range of nitrogen applications up to 200 lb N/acre, split nitrogen applications and single rates of potassium and sulfur. The nitrogen

I

I

source used was ammonium nitrat~, applied as a surface

broadcast application within a period of a few days following the seeding operations.

Data on the soil type, irrigation type and previous crop for the field experiment is given in Table 1.1.3.

RESULTS

Nitrogen Fertilization - Soft Wheat

The grain and straw yields and grain protein and straw niTrogen contents- for soft wheat are presented in Tables 1.1.4 to 1.1.6 and in Figure 1.1.1. Maximum yields recorded were in the range of 45 to 55 bus/acre. Responses to nitrogen were recorded at all locations except one. At the Niska site (Table 1.1.6) the available nitrogen level in the spring was 63 lb N/acre. At this site grain yields were slightly reduced by additional nitrogen fertilization. Straw yields did

increase slightly and consequently the grain- straw ratios

dropped sharply with increasing rates of nitrogen fertilization.

At the Davison site the various water treatments had relatively l i t t l e effect on the yields of wheat. At the Anderson site the Water 3 treatment (dryland treatment) yielded substantially less than the other two irrigation schedules.

Nitrogen fertilization at rates less than 100 lb N/acre

- 6 -

Table l • 1. 2 Fertility treatments used in the field experiments.

Nutrients Applied Treatment Pounds per Acre

Number Nl

P205 K2 0

s

1 0 0 0

2 25 0 0

3 50 0 0

4 75 0 0

as

5 100

applied 0 0

6 150

by 0 0

7 200

farmer 0 0

8 50

+

502 0 0

9 75

+

^{75 0 0}

10 150 0 170

11 150 120 l.7.0

1 All N rates are in addition to that supplied by the ~hosphate carrier. Nitrogen source was ammonium nitrate except for treatment 11

where ammonium sulphate was used.

2 In treatments 8 and 9 one-half of the nitrogen was applied just after seeding and the

remainder was applied in late June.

Table 1.1.3 Site characteristics of soils selected for field experiments.

Crop

Barley Barley Barley Soft wheat l

Soft wheat Soft wheat

Rapeseed Rapeseed Rapeseed l

Variety Farmer Co-operator Conquest A. Carlson Conquest A. Hauberg Conquest Vestre

Lemhi 62 Kroeker Lemhi 62 Vestre Lemhi 62 Niska

Oro Niska

Echo Kroeker Vestre

Previous Crop Soft wheat Soft wheat Flax

Potatoes Barley Rapeseed

Soft wheat Potatoes Potatoes

l Yield data was not obtained at these sites.

Soil Association

Elstow Elstow Asquith

Asquith Elstow Bradwell

Elstow Asquith Asquith

Texture Irrigation Type

loam border dike

loam border dike

fine sandy loam Sprinkler

fine sandy loam loam

very fine sandy loam to loam

loam

fine sandy loam fine sandy loam

Sprinkler border dike Sprinkler

Sprinkler Sprinkler Sprinkler

- 8 -

TH. b l e J • I . 4 The e f f e c t of n 1 t r o g en fer t 11 i z at ion on the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and N content of straw of soft wheat for Elstow soil (Anderson site).

Yield Grain Grafnl Straw N Uptake

lb N/ Trt. Grain Straw Straw Prot. N Grain Straw Total Acre No. bu/ac lb/ac Ratio

% %

lb N/ac

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

-- 0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

0

25 50 75 100 150 200 300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

20.4 31.0 40.8 40.1 48.7 47.8 49.0 49.8

20.3 32.0 40.3 38.2 45.6 46.7 57.1 52.1

21.2 33.3 29.4 27.6 36.0 32.0 35.6 27.3

1575 2498 3236 3317 3865 4150 4250 5097

1581 2822 3453 3509 3810 4277 5643 5218

1579 2475 2521 3174 3974 3353 4105 3961

Water 1 0.79 0.75 0.76 0. 72 0.76 0.70 0.69 0.60

10.3 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.5 11.1 13.1 14.6 Water 2 0.77 0.68 0.70 0.65 0.73 0.66 0.62 0.60

.B-..1

9.3 8.9 8.9 9.5 9.4 11.2 13.1 Water 3 0.80 0.90 0.68 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.52 0.43

10.0 10.3 9.9 10.5 11.0 11.5 13.6 16.0

0.26 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.22 0.37 0.49 0.71

0.27 0.21 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.31 0.41 0.64

0.25 0.28 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.45 0.74

22.1 30.4 40.8 40.5 48.7 55.9 67.6 76.5

19.8 31.3 37.8 35.8 45.6 46.2 67.3 71.8

22.3 36.1 30.6 30.5 41.7 38.7 51.0 46.0

4.1 26.2 5.5 35.8 7.4 48.2 9.0 49.5 8.5 57.2 15.4 71.3 20.8 88.4 36.2 112.7

·- .4 .• 3 2 4 • 2 5.9 37.3 10.0 47.8 9.5 45.3 9.5 55.1 13.3 59.5 23.1 90.4 33.4 105.2

4.0 6.9 6.1 7.6 10.3 9.7 18.5 29.3

26.3 43.0 36.7 38.1 52.0 48.4 69.5 75.3 Available soil N at seeding was 41 lb N/ac to 2 feet

l Protein on 13.5% moisture basis and straw N on oven-dry basis.

- 9 -

Table 1.1.5 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and N content of straw of soft wheat for Asquith soil (Davison site).

lb N/ Trt.

Acre No.

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Yield Grain Grain Straw Straw bu/ac lb/ac Ratio

Gra~n 1

Pro it.

%

Water 1 23.9

29.8 37.2 39.0

1726 2365 2160 3660

0.83 0.77 l . 03 0.67 39.8 3561 0.67 43.8 4746 0.59 39.4 4103 0.68 38.7 5787 0.41

9.8 1 1 • 1 10.8 10.7 10.4 11.5 12.4 12.8 Water 2 27.2 1613 1.02 1n~9

35.9 2948 0.76 11.1 41.5

39.8 44.3 43.9 40.2 49.3

3321 3678 3938 3727 4884 5443

26.5 2215 35.0 2932 35.9 2912 41.8 3673 41.2 3318 46.3 4303 33.6 4161 45.1 4727

0.75 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.51 0.56

10.5 10.8 10.7 12.1 12.9 13.8 Water 3 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.74 0.65 0.48 0.57

10.1 10.3 10.9 12.0 10.5 12.7 12.5 14.1

N

Uptake Straw

N '7o

Grain Straw Total lb N/ac

0.34 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.48 0.53 0.77

24.6 34.8 42.3 43.9 43.6 53.0 51.4 52.1

5.9 7.8 7.8 11.7 12.1 22.8 21.8 44.6

0.33 31.2 5 .• 3 0.36 42.0 10.6 0.36

0.32 0.35 0.49 0.54 0.65

0.36 0.36 0.39 0.43 0.35 0.45 0.48 0.62

45.9 45.3 49.9 55.9 54.6 71.6

28.2 38.0 41.2 52.8 45.5 61. 9

44.2 66.9

12.0 11.8 13.8 18.3 26.4 35.4

8.0 10.6 11.4 15.8 l l . 6 19.4 20.0 29.3

30.5 42.6 50.1 55.6 55.7 75.8 73.2 96.7

36.5 52.6 57.9 57.0 63.7 74.2 81.0 107.0

36.2 48.6 52.6 68.6 57.2 81.3 64.2 96.3

Available soil N at seeding was 44 lb/ac to 2 feet

1 Protein on 13.5% moisture basis and straw N on oven-dry basis.

- 10 -

Table 1.1.6 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and the yield and N content of straw of soft wheat for the field expertments.

Yield Grain Gra1n ^{. 1} N Uptake

N Straw

lb I Trt. Grain Straw Prot.

%

Straw

N Grain Straw Total lb N/ac

Acre No. bu/ac lb/ac Ratio %

0 25 50 75 100 150 200

0 25 50 75 100 150 200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Elstow Soil (Vestre) Soil NO;-N

=

⁴³ lb/ac to 2 ft.

13.9 28.3 28.3 37.8 33.0 43.3 49.2

909 2221 2396 3044 3038 3810 3892

0.94 0.78 0.72 0.75 0.67 0.68 0. 76

9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.8 lO.J.

0.38 0.39 0.42 0.33 0.47 0.40 0.43

13.3 26.8 26.5 35.8 32.3 44.7 52.3

Bradwell Soil (Niska) Soil NO;-N

=

⁶³ lb/ac to 2 ft.

57.5 55.2 59.3 51.6 54.8 49.0 48.4

5626 5964 6410 6296 6624 6789 6935

0.62 0.56 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.42

10.7 11.3 11.8 13.6 12.9 14.4 14.7

0.34 0.39 0.41 0.50 0.43 0.66 0.77

64.8 65.7 73.7 73.9 74.4 74.3 74.9

3.5 8.7 10.1 10.1 14.3 15.2 16.7

19.1 23.2 26.3 31.5 28.5 44.8 53.4

16.8 35.5 36.6 45.9 46.6 59.9 69.0

83.9 88.9 99.9 105.4 102.9 119.1 128.3

1 Protein on 13.5% moisture basis and straw N on oven-dry basis.

..

- _•

^u

'

^::)

.:9

Q

....

- ^..

>- 60

50

•o

30

20

E= l

(Anderson water

l)

Soil N• 41 lb/oc -

__ _.... ... - - - 1 1 6

• ,

·"

·" ^{, ...}

"'

, •

I •

I •

₁₂

I •

I • I •

,.

₁₀

·'v ... ..., •

10 ... ₀ ---+8 _{tOO 200 300}

P&RT N( lb/oe)

__... Yield

~ protein

- -

- z

...

~

Q.

...

u ... 0 .Jl ::t

-

Q

-

tO

>

8

r:

V l ( N

is

kG)

Soi I N • 63 I

b

I ac

60

X

50

-··

-·

.., .

.40

/

_l~

•

^•

^I

•

/ I

/

•

lfD

^{• t2}

• /

• ,

'0

¹⁰

l0+---~~8 ₀

_{JOO 200 300}

FElT N Ub/CJC)

Fiq.l.l.l The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of soft wheat.

fl. ^I

- _z ^- -

_I

-

^l.oo.l

_...

0

call tL

- 12 -

generally had l i t t l e effect on the protein content of wheat.

At rates in excess of 100 lb N/acre protein content increased.

at all locations and in some instances this increase was quite large. At the Niska site (Figure 1.1.1 and Table 1.1.6) the protein content increased for ea~h additional increment of nitrogen. At this site the leven of available nitrogen in the spring was very high and no grain yield response was recorded.

For soft wheat production, where high protein contents are undesirable, a knowledge of the level of available soil nitrogen will be essential. When the soil levels of nitrogen are high,yield responses will not be recorded but protein contents will probably increase sharply.

Nitrogen Fertilization - Ba~ley

The data for barley is presented in Tables 1.1.7 to 1.1.9 and Figure 1.1.2. Maximum yields of barley ranged from

60 to 90 bus/acre. In the water control experiments large

differences were not recorded for the various water treatments.

Large responses to applied nitrogen were recorded at all locations. The highest level of soil available nitrogen was 58 lb/acre (Carlson site) and yield responses were recorded at this site. However, with that level of available soil nitrogen a high check yield (54.4 bu/acre) was recorded.

The major differences in the various barley experiments were with respect to the different varieties used. In the water control experiments a two-row variety (Centennial) was

used whereas in the field experiments a six-row variety (Conquest).

was used. For the Centennial barley the response generally levelled off at about 100 lb N/acre whereas for the

I~ -

Ta b 1 P. 1 • 1 • 7 Til e e r r ~ , · t o l n i l r o 14 e n r e t· t. i I i z a t. i o n o n t he yield and protein ,·ontent of grain and the yield and N l'Ontent of straw of barley for the E1stow soil (Anderson s i t e ) .

1b N/ Trt.

At're No.

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

()

25 50 75 100 150 200 300

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Yield GraiJl Grain¹ Straw l)r·ot.

Grain Straw

bu/ac lb/ac Ratio %

23.5 1130 44.6 2139 60.0 2880 48.5 2330 61.5 2954 59.3 2846 69.9 3357 77.8 3753

20.6 989 43.5 2087 43.9 2107 43.7 2099 50.1 2406 57.8 2775 68.4 3285 62.7 3007

29.2 42.4 44.4 48.3 52.2 54.1 60.6 60.5

1401 2030 2126 2317 2503 2594 2904 2900

Water 1 0.94 0.75 0.94 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.97 0.80

8.3 7.9 6. 0 6 . 1 8.1 9. 7 11 • 6 12.1 Water 2 0.91 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.76 0.71

8.0 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.6 12.0 13.4 Water 3 0.90 0.87 0. 81 0.82 0.77 0. 71 0.68 0.70

8.9 9 • J 9. 2 9. 4 8.9 1 J • 2 13.0 l 4. 0

Straw

---~-~ptak~--­

N

Grain Straw Total

% l b N/ac

0.38 0.34 0.38 0.33 0.30 0.39 0.55 0.76

0.34 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.42 0.44 0.58 0.95

0.39 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.55 0.80 0.93

15.0 27.0 27.7 22.7 38.2 44.2 62.3 72.3

12.7 28.4 28.7 30.2 36.6 47.1 63.0 64.5

:;o.o

2H.6 31 . 4 34.9 35.7 46.5 60.5 6 5. l

4.3 7.3 10.9 7.7 8.9 11. 1 18.4 28.5

3.4 6.5 7.2 6.7 10.1 12.2 19.1 28.6

5.4 7.9 7.9 8.6 9.0 1 4. J 23.2 26. ~)

19. 3 3 4. 3 38.6 30.4 47.1 55.3 80.7 100.8

1 6 • ] 34.9 35.9 36.9 46.7 59.3 82.1 93.1

25.4 J7.5 39.3 4 3. ·1 44.7 60.8 8J.7 92.0

Available soil N at seeding time was 36 lb N/ac to 2 feet.

1 Protein on 13.5% moisture basis and strawN on oven-dry basis.

- 14 -

Table 1.1.8 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and yield and nitrogen content of straw of barley for the Asquith soil (Davison site).

1 b .N; Trt.

Acre No.

()

25 50 75 100 150 200 300

()

25 50 75 100 150 200 300

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Yield Grain Grainl Grain Straw Straw Prot.

bu/ac lb/ac Ratio %

Straw N

%

N Uptake Grain Straw Total

1b N/ac

- - - -

30.5 42.3 41.0 50.5 69.7 68.8 71.5 69.9

1461 2030 1967 2426 3347 3304 3430 3353

28.9 1387 40.2 1928 43.2 2073 43.4 2081 68.7 3296 57.1 2742 67.0 3213 78.7 3777

27.5 43.9 47.3 48.8 60.9 53.6 65.4 67.5

1321 2106 2270 2343 2923 2573 3138 3240

Water 1 l . 04 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.95 0.86 0.87 0.77

7.0 8.1 8.1 9.1 9. 5 10.7 12.0 13.0 Water 2 1.01 0.72 0.87 0.86 0.90 0.75 0.85 0.89

8.0 8.0 8.7 9.2 10.0 10.6 11.9 12.9 Water 3 1.02 0.96 0.90 0.95 0.96 0.80 0.75 0.75

8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 10.3 ll.O 12.5 12.9

0.28 0.34 0.31 0.40 0.34 0.43 0.54 0.74

0.30 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.43

o.oo

0.62

0.39 0.37 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.43 0.57 0.66

16.4 26.3 25.5 35.3 50.8 56.5 65.9 69.8

17.8 24.7 28.9 30.7 52.8 46.5 61.2 78.0

17.7 30.3 33.1 34.5 48.2 45.3 62.8 66.9

4. l 6.9 6.1 9.7 11.4 14.2 18.5 24.8

4.1 6.6 6.6 6.7 11. 5 11.8 16.1 23.4

5.2 7.8 8.2 9.1 10.5 11. 1 17.9 21.4

20.5 33.2 31 • 6 45.0 62.2 70.7 84.4 94.6

21.9 31 • 3 35.5 37.3 64.3 58.3 77.3 , 101.4

22.9 38.1 41.3 43.6 58.7 58.4 80.7 88.3 Available soil N at seeding time was 41 lb N/ac to 2 feet.

1 Protein on 13.5% moisture basis and straw N on oven-dry basis.

I

•

{I

- I 5 -

Table 1.1.9 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the yield and protein content of grain and yield and N content of straw of barley for the field experiments.

Yield Grain

- - - -

^{Grain 1}

lb N/ Trt. Grain Straw Straw Prot.

'7o

Straw N Acre No. bu/ac lb/ac Ratio '7o

()

:25 50 75 100 150 200

0

!)()

75 100 150

~00

0

~5

50 75 100 150

~00

1

~

3 4 5 6 7

:~

4 5 6 7

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Asquith Soil CVestre) So i 1 NO- - N · 5o 1 b I a(' to 2 f t .

3 39.3 ~346

39.0 ~949

39.4 2894

50.~ 3761 55.1 3828

6~.5 4695 73.8 5389

0.70 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.69 0.64 0.66

9 • .1.

9. 3 8.6 9.2 8.9 9.9 l l . 1

0.41 0.35 0.48 0.43 0.40 0.41 0.50 Elstow Soil CHauberg) Soil NO--N - 40 lb/ac to 2 f t .

3

:29.5 10.7 57.7 62.4 65.8 80.8 90.1

1638 2()10

:nn)

4388 4750 5509 7021

0.8(3

0.7~

0.7:'>

0.71 0.67 0.70 0.61

8.8 8.4 8. ;}

8. :~

8.7 9.1 10.4

0.35 (). 2 7 0.27 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.5'1 Elstow Soil (Carlson)

Soil NO--N- 58 1b/ac to 2 f t . 3

54.4 3591 61.8 4636 59.8 4682 69.1 5022 73.7 5703 80.6 6444 89.9 7308

0.73 0.65 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.60 0.60

9.0 9.5 8.7 9.5 9.6 10.9 12.2

0.34 0.22 0.28 0.31 0.38 0.74 0.54

N Uptake

Grain Straw Total lb N/ac

27.5 27.9 26.0 35.5 37.7 47.5 62.9

:.w. :l :l7. 2

:~ ~) • 8 44.0 56.5 72.0

37.6 45.1 40.0 50.4 54.3 67.5 84.2

9.6 ] 0 • 3 13.9 16. 2 15. 3 19.3 27.0

5.7 7. I 10.2 I 1 • 4 14.7 15.4 37.9

12.2 10.2 13.1 15.6 21.7 47.7 39.5

3 7. 1 38.2 3 ~) • ~l

5 J • 6 53.0 66.8 89.9

25.6 :l :l • :l 17.1 5 l • ~

58.7 71 • 9 109.9

49.8 55.3 53.1 66.0 76.0 115.2 123.7

1 Protein on 13.5% moisture basis and straw N on oven-dry basis.

100

80

u

-

_..0 0 ^:;)

60

0

_,

w

>-

40

20 0

Fig .1.1.2

/

Centennial ( 2-row) A :V L (Davison, water 1 ) So i I N

= 41

lb I ac

X

...

^{.., ...}

/

,

,

/

, ,o

/

, ,

I I /

/

~

/ / / /

, jJ' , p

/ / /

0 / 0

/ / /

100 200

FERT N lb I ac

)( ,,yield

o- - ~Protei.n 100

15

80

-

^u ₀

13

-

.., ...

-

~

- z -

_{..0 0} ^:;)

⁶⁰

w

_,

1- w

1 1

0

a::

>-

a..

40

9

7

20

300

The effect of nitrogen fertitizataon on tl,e vield and 0

Conquest (6..:... row) E= L ( Hauberg) Sod N= 40 lblac

p

, / / /

"

/ / /

"'

,.,/(J 0"

.. '0-....o--<Y"'

,"

100 200

FERT N lb/ac protein content of barley.

15

13

-

(t!.

-- _z

w _I

1-

-

1 1

0

a:: ^(). I a..

9

7

300

l 7 -

Conquest variety, responses were recorded at all th1·ee locations up to ~00 lb N/acre. At this time it is not known whether

this effe<'t is directly related to genetic l"cl<·lors or to other environmental factors not measured. I t was shown

(see Table 1.1.17) that phosphorus was limiting the yields of barley when high rates of nitrogen were used on the water control experiments. However, the soil levels of available phosphorus were not greatly different between the field

experiments and water control experiments. There f o r e , i t i s unlikely that levels of available phosphorus would explain the apparent difference between the two varieties.

Nitrogen fertilization increased the protein content of barley in all cases. For the field experiments increases in protein were small or non-existent at rates of nitrogen below 100 lb N/acre. Similar results were obtained at the Anderson site. However, at the Davison site protein content was increased at rates of nitrogen less than 100 lb N/acre.

Nitrogen Fertilizatio!!____.=._li~seed

The yield, oil content and protein content for rapeseed are presented in Tables 1.1.10 to 1.1.12 and Figure 1.1.3.

The very low grain yields presented in Table l. l .10 are due to infestations of both grasshoppers and Beet webworm. At that same site straw yields were similar to those obtained at other locations, indicating similar yield potential and similar response to nitrogen. Strong responses to nitrogen were recorded at both of the water control experiments where soil nitrogen levels were in the medium range. On the two field experiments only limited response to additional nitrogen

- 18 -

Table 1.1.10 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield, protein content and oil content of Oro rape- seed (Anderson s i t e ) .

Note: Crop was heavily damaged by infestations

0 {' grasshop!)(~I'S and beet Webworm.

----,---

Yield Grain Grain 1

Oil N

^Uptake

Gra~Straw Straw Prot.

bu/ac lb/a<' Hatio %

Straw

N

--- - - - -

lb N/ ^Trt.

Acre No. % Grain Straw Total

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

()

:25 50 75

]()()

150 :200 300

0 25 50 75 100 150 200 300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4.1 1175 5.3 2132 6.1 1735 10.0 3014 9.2 2803 14.2 3796 17.0 4346 15.1 4937

2.8 3.8 3.8 9. 6 4 • :3 1 l • 0 7.8 4.5

4.1 4.9 6.2 4.6 7.1 8.5 9.9 9.3

937 16 71 1430 2984 1 59:3 :3 59() 2336 3478

1131 1932 2207 1760 2670 2820 3878 3759

Water 1 0.18 0.13 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.16

23.3 21.7 22.4 23.1 22.1 24.6 25.3 28.7 Water 2 0. l 5 0. l 2 (). l 5 0. 14 (). 1 6 () • J 7 0. J 5 0. 14

23.9 22.9 2 ') ') ~. ~

22.3 2 I • 0 25.1 2 4. ~J

29.4 Water 3 0.18 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12

20.9 24.5 21.5 22.8 22.6 26.0 27.7 30.0

% 0.17 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.48 0.88

0.50 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.41 () . ·16 0.78 0.90

0.33 0.48 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.45 0.59 0.99

40.6 41.9 41.7 42.5 42.7 41.6 40.2 37.8

40.8 40.9 40.3 39.8 40.9 39.4 37.7 34.7

39.4 40.8 40.9 39.6 38.9 37.6 35.7 34.4

7.5 9.2 10.9 18.5 16.3 28.0 34.4 34.7

5.3 7.0 6.8 l 7 • J

7 ')

.

^~

:2 ~ • :~

l 5. 5 10.6

6.9 9.6 10.7 8.4 12.8 17.7 21.9 22.3

Jb N/ac

5.5 8.7 6.9 l l . 5 10.1 14.8 20.9 43.4

4.7 7.5 5.8 12.8 6.5 l 6. 5 18.:2 31 • 3

3. 7 9.3 7.5 5.5 8.5 12.7 22.9 37.2 Available soil N at seeding time was 36 lb N/ac ~o 2 feet.

1 Protein expressed as total seed N x 6.25 (dry basis) and straw N expressed on dry basis.

J ~3. 2 J 7. 9 17.8 30.0 26.4 42.8 55.3 78.1

10.0 14.5 J 2. 6 2\cl.9 1 3. 7 38.8 3:3 • 7 41.9

10.6 18.9 18.2 13.9 21.3 30.4 44.8 59.5

- I ~J -

Table 1.1.11 The effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield, protein content and oil content of Oro rape'- seed (Davison site)

Yield Grain Grain ^l Straw Oi I N Uptake 1 b N/ Trt. Grain Straw Straw Prot. N

% ^Gr~i;; Straw Total Ac~re No. bu/ac lb/ac Hatio % "'a I b N/a<'

Water

0 l 7.5 921 0.42 21 . 2 0.38 43.7 12. 7 3.5 16.2 25 2 10.0 1391 0. :36 20.1 0.34 44.9 16. 1 4.7 :w.8 50 3 16.9 2454 0.35 18.9 0.33 44.8 25.5 8.1 33.6 75 4 23.3 3394 0.35 20.3 0.31 44.6 37.8 10.5 48.3 100 5 23.3 3096 0.36 19.7 0.36 44.9 36.7 11.2 47.9 150 6 22 •. 8 2981 0.38 20.1 0.32 45.2 36.7 9.5 46.2 200 7 28.3 3624 0.38 21.8 0.46 40.2 49.4 16.7 66.1 300 8 38.0 4839 0.39 25.2 1.13 37.2 76.6 54.7 131 • 3

Water 2

0 1 7.8 956 0.40 21.1 0.46 42.1 13.2 4.4 17.6 25 ^~ 7.5 1103 0.35 19.4 0.37 43.9 11 • 6 4. 1 15.7 50 3 1 7. 6 2490 0.35 21.4 0.41 42.9 30.1 10.2 40.3 75 4 15.8 2244 0.35 21.2 0.

:i

6 4 l. l 26.8 8.1 34.9 100 5 12.0 1744 0.~5 l 9. 8 0.37 4:2.5 19.0 6.5 25 •. 5 J 5 () 6 ] 7. 8 3079 0.28 20.9 0.38 4 3. I 29.8 I I . 7 41 • 5 :200 7 26.5 3694

o..

36 :2;:!.9 0. 41 4 I • 7 50.7 I 5. l 65.8 300 8 51.3 6523 0.39 26.5 0.79 37.9 108.8 5 J • 5 l60.~i

Water 3

0 1 6.0 874 0.35 20.0 0.35 44.7 9.6 3.1 12.7 25 2 7.6 1096 0.34 20.8 0.32 43.9 12.7 3.5 16.2 50 3 9.7 1335 0.36 20.5 0.34 43.9 15.9 4.5 20.4 75 4 13.5 2014 0.34 20.4 0.31 45.4 22.0 6 ')

·-

^28.2

100 5 7.9 1254 0.32 20.7 0.31 44.1 13.1 3.9 17.0 150 6 15.0 2179 0 •. 35 22.5 0.37 41 • 9 27.0 8. 1 35.1 200 7 25.7 3716 0.35 23.7 0.40 41 . 9 .48.7 14.9 63.6 300 8 31. 1 4400 0.35 27.7 0.83 36.4 68.9 36.5 105.4 Available soil N at seeding time was 43 1b N/ac.

1 Protein expressed as total seed N X 6.25 (dry basis) and straw N expressed on dry basis.