1967 Soil Plant Nutrient Research Report

SOIL PLANT NUTRIENT RESEARCH REPORT

D.A. RENNIE E.H. HALSTEAD

W.A. RICE

Department of Soil Science University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Printed March, 1968 Saskatchewan Institute

of Pedology Report No. M7

l c (e ( ) ( ⁾

I I ^p

I

l . Wheat~ oats and barley se stul)bl d soils responded strongly to f rt l ze t mum ie lizer-N input of appro mat y lb of N p

1 i as(·2/ ^,.:;: ~·I.

in a 9.3₁ 13.2 and 16. bu 1

and oats respe tively

2. Unfertilized check yields fo s ^{s 1} he zemi soils were appro im c ^l.l

oded soils. optimum input 0 b

increased yields of wheat and b l ^y b m tel per acre

3 ^G V"L • cooperative p ogram on inues to id el=

lent guideline as to the erform e so 1 tions eld i reases based on oil tests re

average yield increase of 7.9 bu e, in omp son to the 5.6 bu increase where the g eral f t:lL i o:n.

we'ce follo:vted.

4o sa-phosphate carriers such as 27-27-0 d

s

^{c be}

full recommended ~or barle and o s on t basi 0 th.

btained in 1967 and previous

carrier has been somewh erratic when ed a.

N and P for wheat. and i t is suggested tha a s of appli a~-·

tion of N using thes a.rrier uld not eed 20 lb of 1\f/

5. or the climatic c nditi s pr ail g 19 maxim.um efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen was obtained th ad placement e however ₉ whc; the r t o N appl i d with

eeded 2 lh f N ield reolu t i ccuJrred with wheat

···~

ae e

,

l -4 e s

l

see i

y a so

FIELD :F'EH1'Il.I'Z'EH 1967

The 1967 field fertilizer testing program included 50 large scale field plots on stubble land and 27 on summerfallow The investigations carried out on stubble land were primarily designed to confirm or adjust the present soil and test bench- marks.

A

limited number of these tests involved comparisons between urea nitrogen and ammonium nitrate nitrogen applied to- gether with ll-48-0. The effect of different nitrogen placements was also investigated in a number of field-scale plots. Straw placement experiments were set out at two locations. Soil test data obtained in the fall of 1966 indicated that approximately 20% of the summerfallow fields in the province possibly required additional nitrogen for optimum yields. Field strip tests were set out to assess the economics of applying additional nitrogen on the low-N fallow soils. In addition₉ a series of tests

involving potash fertilization were set out on soils with low available K.

Most of the data obtained from the individual plots are presented in the Appendixe

I. THE NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS OF CEREALS SEEDED

(A) ,Oray Wooded Soils

STUBBLE LAND

Six plots located on Gray Wooded soils in the area east of Kelvington included treatments of 11-48-0~ and 11=48~0 plus 20, 30, 60~ 80 and 100 lb N/acre broadcast. These plots were

'~"

e

~tJ. ·?o

3 ^G!

le 1. Stubble Fertilize sts 011 Wooded oils

A.

Mean Yield of eck and Yield Increases (b )

ll-48-0 @ 60 plus 33.5-0-0 @ Check 11·~48-0

Wheat (2) 7.6 3.0 3.2 7.5 1 0 12.5 l 2

Barley (3) 14.1 6.'7 .5 8 3 l l 1

Oats 0 ) 29o5 6.9 HI 4 4.8 25.0

B.

Soil st lues

Wheat (2) 10 13 320

Barley ( 3) 25 12 266

Oats (1) 20 30 392

(B) Chernozemic Soils { ubble Land)

Thirteen field-scale experiments were conduc ed on the farms of former students of the School of riculture. These experiments included 7 wheat plots1 8 barley plots1 l durum and l oats plot. The treatments consisted of 2 rates of (20 and 30 lb re) in combination with 4 rates of nitrogen

(20~ 30₉ 40 and 60 lb re). e plots were seeded with the farmers• equipment. sub-plot sampling sites were selected on a topographical basis and the depth of moist soil was

determined at seeding time. e average elds arid soil test values are presented in Table 2 and Figures 2a and 2b.

In general, there were no significant differences in

response to the two rates of alt in some individual

5.

cases (R. Bruce, olidge) the 30 lb rate gave higher yields.

There were several plots with soil test P values in the very low range which did not show significant responses to the additional 10 lb P205 per acre.

Table 2<» School of iculture ⁼ -operative Tests (Stubble)

A.

Mean Yield and eld Inc1•eases (b re) Check

Wheat (7) 22@0 ^@ 40 3@3 6.1 6 7 5.8 8.0

@ 60 4.7 4.7 5o2 7.4 8.8

BarlE~Y ( 4) 23.2 ^@ 40 4.9 ^;)>. 0 6.6 6 3 5.1

@ 60 3.9 6.8 3.1 5.3 6.0

Durum (1) 16.4 ^@ 40 0.9 1.5 5.2 5 8 8.8

@ 60 4.0 12.1 12.5 12.5 10.9

Oats (l) 27.9 ^@ 40 4.9 5.0 4.7 5.0 4.2

@ 60 -0.8 7.9 5.9 7.8 10.8

B.

Soil Test Value

Tb Ny3 -N/acre 2 ^{w I!}

Wheat ( 7) 42• 16 741

Barley 31 18 910

Durum (l) 57 19 1058

Oats (l) 28 17 1276

For the 7 wheat plots₉ the average yield continued to increase with increasing fertilizer nitrogen up to the 60 lb re

rate~ whereas With the 4 barley plots. the optimum rate of nitrogen was about 30 lb/acre. The soil test N values ranged from 10-68 lb N03-N per acre 2 feets with most of them (9 plots) falling in the medium to very low ranges.

wCl =~

-

)

e

( )

The stu lJle f t: 1

the di t r i c t edi i 01""8 he er in.is=

ation was continued in t e t i l p

our field~scal tes s ededg on :lrl eacl1 distJL,ic

in previous t e an farmers" was sed in seeding the plo s un r e super isi edi

isors. i d grai sampl s t 10

sub~plot basi d the depth o mo1s~ soil ord

seeding time" Soi samp s re al o t on Lield ba is in the fall 1 6 ld amples e obtai ed r

plots~ either because t pl ^.>to t' was lowed under 0 because he p ot was harvest d be or yi ld samples ld ^'b aJce110

yield data from l s e not us d be u 0 e extreme variabili t in sample sizeo

e actual rat s f fer lization var ed o what from plot to plot1 however for summ on pos ld results in le 3 and gure 3 have been group and averaged ^c·

ope ative sts (Sttlbble)

A.

Mean Yield d Yield ncr ases (b ⁾

Wheat (16) 16.9 l .

Barley (2) 17.2 3o9 10 4 l L 5

Durum (l) 11.8 L8 1 8

B.

Soil :st ue:s

lb 2w lb re 6" lb e 6"

=~~.,._,='>=n&,,=...,..,...,,,.,_,-="""""'="'=~ "-===>""""""=----'-"--=--=-"'===•"""""""''-~

Wheat (16) 18 ^~-~6 20 21 753 892

Barley ⁽²⁾ 8 18 56 43 740 845

Durum (l) 90 52 33 19 1208 lliW

The spring soil test N values (19 plots for which eld data ~e reported) varied from 12 to 94, lb re with 5 plots in the very low range, 7 in the low range and 3 in the medium range. In general good responses to

N

and

P

fert lization were ob ained on these plots

13 locations₁ a treatment corresponding to the soil test recommendation was applied.

A

comparison of the yield increases of this treatment and the general recommendation of

r)H is shown. in le e average y:l. el d increases indicate that an additional 2.3 bu re were obtained by following the soil test recommendation. rather than the general recommendation. is additional increase resulted from an addi- tional 17 lb N and 4 lb P per acre.

)

. ' .

Table 4. er e Yield Inerfc.;as :f HI. pli ation_ of st Recommendation

erage of 1~-l

t st locations ⁰ 17 5 ( co-op tests)

IL

v s • 2 0 1 b j\f and p

7o

Urea-phosphate fertilizers were test d in 4 f ld plot t:h.e e consisted of 2 barley and 2 wheat plots located on s n

sthern and e e folio ng f l i rn e were used: 11-48-0 - plus ammonium nitrate₁ 23 23-0 ^1'11 ammonium sulphate plus urea₁ and 27- 7-0 - se plots were seeded with the departmental equ ment₁ e h plo co ting of 19 variously treated 8 ft x

i

mile s t r i s e ub lfJt:

sites were selected at seeding time1 and these served as s tes for soil sampling eld sampling and installation of neutr rnoistlire;

ete ac ess tubes. e ~ub-plot sites were identifi d on a profil ba.sis(&

data presented in le 5 and Figures 4a and 4 i:n.di.cat.e different response patterns of wheat and barle to urea-phosphate fe tilizerse the wheat plots₁ a eld decrease was t: ~3 5 lb rate as compared to the 20 lb rate. (In Figs 4a and ~lb ~ thi::l f tilizer rates also refer to fertilizer-N rates for }J.e three 1 g 1 fertilizers.) is ef ect canno be observed in the yi ld f r the barley plots. Th 27-27-0 fertilizer se~ms o be l i tly snperi for barley and was the least detrimental in lowering the 1.d at t:he 25 lb rate on the wheat plots.

t _• ( )

' /;

_L -.1: c1

l u.b

e 2) l 1"

4 C,

( ) 15

l ^]_

1b l

(2

s

d t f 1

es 1 s

2:n es bs on

er i:i :z:e gav

er·oas e of ^.L fer

ap ' ^o<..

:c cr e ^e~r · ns

i he s 1 N

or ⁰ e lo c medi u.m f

and h 1 :1 el

n c l

\111. e0

i f:f re

bs rv

IIL

15~

le 6, Germ:inat on. unt

110 plants ow)

25e 25 0 25 3 25 ^~{

Check 24o6

iplicate counts per tr atment were each of the 10 sampli s tes

stage.

barley and two wheat trials;

each treatment i he me o he 25 lb re treatment

field-scale plots (wheat) wer 5

N ..

en at

d a for

out i whJ.

fertilizer placements were studied: with the seed d d about 1 inch from the seed₁ and broad as the phos horu and nitrogen were side-banded ~n the second i cat ion ^& wb.ere in the ther applications the phosphorus was banded with the se

e sampling pattern₁ plot layout₁ and installation of neutron meter aecess tu.bes VJ'as ·the same as outl d for

tests described above.

3

The yield data ( le 7 and Figure 5) indi ate that the yield decreases when the rate of itrogen applied with the seed exceeds 20 lb re gure 5 shows that 20 lb f N e vJ'i th th.e seed gave the best average ield In general, the sid -b an broadcast treatments did not gi e signif cantly hi er yields than the place~ent with the seed.

1'7.

Th~

a6il

tes~

N

val~es aried consider

ly

among e plots; very low, low and high N values were observed for the

Honey~ Shields and Bellamy plots, respectively Table 7. N~Placement

Check Yield

11.5

A.

^{Mean eld and}

3 Wheat ots Placement

with seed side banded

sts (Stubble)

eld Increases (b re)w

07

broadcast 11-48-0 @ 40 with seed plus

Soil Test

33.5-0=0 b ...1,§_

3.3 7.1 ue

@

4: 2

5 1

lb ^{e 6u} lb ^{e 6 ~~}

29 15 602

IV.

STRAW PLACEMENT

Straw incorporation trials w~re conducted on a t ille Loam soil in t~e Kelvington a,rea and a Blaine soil near

Rosthern. The data from these experiments has not as yet ₁ been fully processed. However. the following generalizatio~concerning

the immobilization of nitrogen by straw are suggested. ese

comments are supported by data obtained by Ledi am at Sasll:atoon~

Scott and Swift Current.

l

:c

Bl

N

0 8

0

t i

1oed ^].

n

0

i

e es at:L e i

t i a I

e ^f~roca.I e d of

k

1 ⁰

19 •

... 61)NIUM POLY-PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER TESTS (Fallow)

- 4 - scale test was conducted in which ammonium

·0) was compared with mono-ammonium phosphate

=

poly-phosphate fertilizer was not available

~ason, only one plot site was obtained, and

j being sown to rapeseed. The yield results indicate that 15-60-0 resulted in slightly higher e produced by 11-48-0 applications.

9. Poly- phosphate Test - Yield of Rapeseed (lb./ac) (Schrader, Okl.a, NW1-35-9-W2)

Check Yi eld 506

11-48-0 @ 20 573

40 535

60 690

80 569-

15- 60-0 ^@ 16 557

33 492'

50 . 671

J

66 716

23- 23-0 ^@ 87 545

1

1

2L

TABLE

COMPARISON 01" FALL AND SPRING

SOil~ TEST DATM< ( l

Farmer Soil

----~~~~"""""""""""-"" _ _,, "',_ .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.,., ... -*"'''''''"~··· .. ~

Evans

1 BrVL t,z 18

17 656

755

Evans WL ^ll; 19 904 880

Drew RHvG 18 54 6 6 1088 "1324

Rennick ¹ RHvC ^{. 23} 32 18 9 1272 1088

Grandfield ^Lc\TL

10

^'18

35 200 205

La KSiL

10 19

304-

Cadr:i.n 1 HmL 23 50

14

352

594

Cadrin 2 Hmi, 37· 51

21

6

?

Halstead A:FL 32

51

71 1

760

720

Konschuh BrVL

40

85

20 15 648

7

Ewert WL

15

95

13

8 520

562

Wilkinson ECI..

45

27

15 984

1326

Mickle borough RHvC

37 55

12 6 990

Tomashewski KSiCL 29 55

37

22 632

2 RHvC

41 50 20

6 1

1142

le TiCL

22 31

636

lWERAGE 28.8

50.2

20.6 18.3

710

^,,.

·k: Note.:.these data compare the fall tests to those obtained from t,he ^~.Ln. the spr

is the average value obtained by the field crew from the area on which the test strips were located. Since the fertilizer rates used were

based on the fall ~ sampling data the rates used in these experiments were not necessarily those that the soil tests from the plot area would

have indicated.

1

Gra ie La

Cad:r l

lkinaon

e I I includes teat crop. The data

}_ l =·i.\.8 =0.

seeded com par be

l t

ta 1 on.

'

,

Tl.

+

3. 6

tea on the verage a

ppl:Led t rates

lar increase vilas lied a 1 ere an.d ll

t se

On

t

-0

1

sites 23-23-0 at 80 1 ere gave the t incn::ase in ld. Or! the rema 3 sites ll-48-0 gave the best response. At the Konschuh site the spr soil test value of 85 1 ere nitrate-ni tllould in-

•:Hca te that a ni response would not be expected. the~ ield and Cadrin 1 sites the spr nitrate levels

were

such that one

have expected a response to ni til tion.

TABLE 12

Farmer

Evans

1

Drew

La;.::aroff Halstead Konschuh

AVERAGE

Soil

BrVL RHvC KSiL AFL RrVL

YIELD RESPONSE TO VARIOUS FERTILIZER APPLICATION FOR WHEt\.T

GROHN

ON SUJVJ.JVJERFALLOW FIELDS TESTING LOWKR

THAN .

NORHAL

IN ~N o?e

Check

Yield

19.23 23.70

23.99

25.60 29.31 24 .• 31

1s

23-23-0

+8.

1 +5.

+0.48 -2.29 +5.36

+2.87

.36

.56

+5. +5.63

+5.41

+3.01

+

+4~28

.51 ,12

+5.27

+5.

*

-23-0 applied at 80 lb ere. Rates of

seeded

crops.

for other treatments as the soil test for tubble

Table 12 includes the trials on which 18 -0

was a 18

+ 5.82 +

3.66 .30 +· .09

+.5.

+

5.87

ied to wheat grown on surnrnerfallm11. The average data for the 5 sites indicates

that 18-£,.6-0 at soi 1 test recommend1:?!d :o;'a tes of gave similar responses as 23-23-0 at 80 and the split ication. On 4 of the 5 sites

t

l

bl:L

responses to fertilization on sumJuerfall.ow fields with lower than normal nitrate-ni soil tests. This was particularly true on the Regina

c

soiL For oats seeded on suromerfa llo'tv on a

similar soil with a similar nitrate tes~ there was no response to additional nitrogen fertilization that contained in 11

For flax,a response of

1.5

bushels to 30 lh of ere was obtained on Tisdale Loam soil vJith a lm'IT nitrate

Conclu~

Recommendations based on the results of these trials are:

On summerfallow fields with nitrate tests·in the medium range (31 =

phosphates such as

the use of ammonium

etc.~ may he

The te recommendation should be c:onsidered. when. se the fertilizer to use.

For very low and low nitrate=ni soil tests on summerfallow (0 ~ 30 l inches) that ni be as indicated the present benchmarks. The (:hoice of fertilizer materials be

on the soil test data.

That research be continued in this area to determine the economics of nitrogen response on summerfallow f with very low an.d low nitrate=

nitrogen tests.

t:he

i

100

111 addif: co ted soil tes

2'7o

TABLE 14

COHPARISON OF FALL AND SPRING

SOIL TEST ))l\J~A 'k

(lb

Fanner Soil Type

~=-"-·~· ~~-·~~----~~===-=-~·=.~-~-· - - - -

Arnold GbLS 193 88 22 12 56 Fallmv

Harrison 2 CrVL 1lt3 96 20 ll 79 Fallow

Rediger CrVL

75

60 18 9 Fallov1

Youzwa CrVL 20 52 16 12 48 Stubble

Gentner CrVL 134 123 33 56 57 Stubble

Kozun CrVL 121 1 13 6 56 36 Fallm·J

Skogsrud SbFL 7

22

27 27 150 22/+ Stubble

Harrison 1 CrVL 35 58 18 11 Stubble

Lang WfVL 21 35 15 159 Stubble

Hayes SbVL

16

32 26 21

·'

^{128 282 Stubble}

SbVL 34

51

30 136 323 Fallow

Collins SbVL

21

30 6 7 70 Stubble

ie LcVL 35

2

Fallow

AVERAGE

.4

65 ⁰ 1

.o

^15.7

.3

.2

*

^NOTE~ these data compare the fall tests to those obtained from the trial area in the spring •.

Results

~·~~~"

Table M summarizes the soil test data from the various locations.

When comparing the fall and spring tests in mind that the fall data is from the field as sampled the farmero The spr data is the average value obtained the field crew for the area on which the test str

located. ^Tl~ rates of fertilizer were determined from the fall field

HaLTis:on

,0(1

0 1

Ta

1

of

0

.,u

,,

Llmv

1

TABLE i,6

Farmer

Skogsrud Harrison Lang

AVERAGE

Soil Type

YIELD RESPONSE ON :',ARLEY TO

PHOSPHAI'E Ai\iD POTASH FERTILIZATION:!<

ls

Check

Yield l l

+ ^~j-

33.5~0-0 33.5-0-0

+

0-0-60

K test

--~

SbFL 25 ⁰ 63

+

8. 72 +26.0'7 Stubble Crvi. 26.23

+

^{3;10 +17,87 Stubble}

WfVL

23.90

+

^{9.72 159}

s

25.25

+

7.18 +19.

*

11-48-0 and 33.5=0-0 applied at rates by soil test. 0-0-60 ied at 100

Table ,1.6 compares 3 sites on which nitrogen as well as phosphate and potash were applied.

At

all three locations

on bar to a broadcast application of 0-0-60 at 100 were obtaiaed, The average increase was 12.5 bushels

SbJ?l.J

+

5.~ T 3.

l

Table l7 dcast

l

Lds is

t i .. B

At

~o plus =0 th_e split a

L-'1. ,,

ld responEws d l 1

3L

grmving season indicated that a ld response should have been obtained for all three crops tested. Yield data sb,owed response to

only on the barley.

l) The observation that bar better to :fertilization than wheat is verified by these results.

2) General on barley the response to a broadcast application of 0-0-60 at 100 lb/acre was superior to 10-30-10 with the seed at

~ rate determined the phosphorus test. However, in some cases equally as good or better responses were obtained with 10~30-10

Field'experiments should be continued and in the fol areas:

a) a study on the residual effect of broadcast a

o-o~6o

at

various rates.

extension of fi~ld trials to include fields with potassium soil tests ticular for bar

ication of

exten~ion of ~ork in t~e such as; rapeseedv alfa

sh deficient areas on other c~ops clover~ oats and wheato

rmer Bruce xford ts

Bruce xfo1"d l'Um olidge shburn eat .ay

llmore .eat

•oh te dive trley lOd .llmore trley

Yield Results (bu/acre) - Department of Soil Science - School of Agriculture Students Co-operative Field Fertilizer Tests on Stubble Land, 1967

Yield Increase

11-48-0 @ 40 plus 33.5-0-0 @ 11-48-0 @ 60

11-48-0 11-4-8-0

Check

@40 45 78 10 5 16 5 @60 45 78

Soil Type Yield RHvC

3-19-26-1'72 27.9 4.9 5. 0 4.7 5 '0 4.2 -0.8 7.9 5. 9

RHvC

SE16-18-26-'tl2 16.4 0. 9 1.5 5. 2 5.8 _{8' 8} 4.0 12.1 12.5

WaL

20-49-25-W3 30.2 5. 7 " Oo'+

..

^c: u • " ^':I "'•--'-c::

,

'7 ^{I o} '4 ^V 11®8 _{2 * 7} 6. 8

T-EsCL

S\-13-l0-ll-W2 17,2 1.0 1.4 2.6 3.4 L9 -0.8 -1.8 -1.1

vl-EsCL

S\116-8-19-1'72 16.7 9. 9 6.1 9.6 6.8 10.6 7. 3 8.4 5.3 vl-TCL 22.01

2.1 5.9 5.9 1.0 5.1 5.4 6.1 -0.8

N~J6-ll-l0-W2

,.,

34,3L -I'Ll -L4 2 8 4.5 2.7 1.7 6 ⁰ 8 ^LL8

est field

? -East field

plus 33.5-0-0@

10 5 16 5

7. 8 10. 8

12.5 10. 9

9.7 22.0

-L4 -3.0

7 ⁰ 5 9. 0

2 ~ 7 6. 8 2.2 3.8

e ^{b (.~' ... trn i ['--: .. L .c:}

t ^}, T' c:n.

@ 0 1 Li-

78 7 l

:Ia_rniiton

t i l Cl ^{c (l}

e ·r

1 ^c

a.t

0,7

rall.:Ln ^·y~L '"'"

l\J ^{~~ ~·~ «~ ~~J}

Yield Results: Department of Soil Science ^~ V.L.A. Co~operative Fertilizer Tests on Stubble Land

11-48-0 plus

11-48-0 ^23~23-0 33.5-0-0

-

edit Advisor

-

^Check Fert. Rate Yield Fert. Rate Yield Fert. Rate Yield

rrr,er· Soil Type Yield lb/acre Increase lb/acre Increase lb/acre In crease

k er-E a:y1<~ard ScC-HvCL

siniboia S22-8-30-W2 12.7 42 1.8 80 0.5 40

+

^{110 0 • 7}

,~+ -o.-..

•X-Ford BL 1

.mboldt SW28-37-23-W2 16.0 43 4.8 83 4.4 43 ~ 70 4.8

eat

·addock-· Cas avant TiSiC

sdale SE24-44-15-~12 14.8 35 2.2 85 8.4 45 + 110 ^4.,0

.eat

•aft en za- Denis FxSiC-CL

·avelbourg SE33-ll-5-W3 11.8 43

1.8

87 1.8

~rum

:ndel-Tosh

OL-CL

mgbank SW22-14-3-W2 27.1 38 3.2

85

3.8 39

+

^{120 9 • 8}

,eat 60

+

^{85 7.4}

.ng-Humphrey TuC

62+(32+64)2

>vrletta SW4-19-29-W2 50 10.4 L6 .1

teat

146-0-0

@

70

233.5-0-0

@

32 plus 46-0-0

@

64

<3di :·arrner·

1cDona1 {heat

akub ich

sults: Departm t f So 1 cienc

~;o:I1 ~'f

~

L

~ 5--5~\rJ:~

ec Yield

e ubb

Inc ease

1itchell-Stadni k E L (ad i l l e

fheat

1ox-~:c Ollil

Ll.pa. l

3a ey

1urch-ClaJ~'k

clath Jh at

k:Leod--Beddome )rince Albert /heat

Je ace~ Porte Cinistino larley

)u ckey-N ovJOsad Ieacham

rheat

Wf·-Np VL.-CL SIH 9 ·-51~ lli· ·· \iJ2

WL

NE - 0-9··vJ:3

Hm iCL~LL 0··46~26-W2

MSiC

S~16 45·-21~W2

ESiC

SE32-36·~ 7-W

40

67

18,9

44

36 CL 0

L

·97

7

68

63

68

~operative Field Fertilizer

ie1

II~CT'82S

' 7

1 c

1 •. 7

10,3

11~· lus

b

48 + 9

8L} + 95

5 +

9 ~- 60

·!- 20

3

+

l l '72 {

t e.

e

79

+

2 0 1 8 + 192

6

+

7

i id i crease

0 7

.l{. ~ 7

c 1

Yield Results~ Department of Soil ^c: ..,clence ^{• ~} VoLoAo Co~operative Field Fertilizer Tests on. Stubble Land

ll-48-0 plus

11~48-0 23~23·-0 ^33o5~Q~Q

Credit Advisor- Check· Fert. Rate Yield Fert. Rate Yield Fert. Rate Yield

Farmer Soil pe Yield lb/acre Increase lb/acre Increase lb/acre Increase

Salkeld-Keith CaSiCL-CL 25.6 ^{42 ~4.9} 88 14.5 42 + 120 5.0

Yorkton. SW33-26-3-W2 55 + ¹²⁰ 7.9

i'Jh eat

Shervlin-Sharp CyL

*

Shaunavon SW20-l0-18~\rl3 12.4 37 3 0 5- 73 3.1 37 + ⁸⁵ 6.6

Wheat

Simpson-Zunti E-WCL

Unity NE33-38-25-W3 18.5 4-2 2o6 85 7.6 42 + ^{100 13.5}

i'lheat 75 + ^{125 14.5}

Steabner-PePkham EC-CL

Hearts Hill SE32-36-26-W3 19.8 50 0.4 96 5.4 50

+

^{127 ],.2.0}

lilheat

Steenson-Fro1ek MeFSL

North Battle ford SW9-4-4--l7-W3 11.9 45 0.6 90 3.5 45 + ⁹⁰ 5.8

Wheat ^{!.l!:: • ..J}

+

^{110 5 . 5}

Z·inkhan-PoHell RHvC

Rosetovrn SE10~31~15~\rJ3 22.0 38 ^~0.6 87

L4

38 + ^{120 11.8}

Wheat 38 + ^{9CHB 0. 5}

; 8 i t

0 ~C'J:'

f :i pBS"/ n la:i:,l

eac.harn J'h

iel.

Ci

SE

s ^c I! ⁰

te I

5

.rmer

.shford la .rley

ndquist ntlaH eat rkin la rley ven

lvington ts

inhandl ntlaH eat lson la rley

Yield of Grain (bu/acre) ~ Department of Soil Science Field Fertilizer Tests on Stubble Land ~ Nitrogen Levels

Yield Increase

11~48~0

@

60 plus 33.5-0-0

@

Soil Type Check Yield 11-48-0

@

60 45 78 16 5 222

1-lvL _i~

N IJ 2 4-3 5 ~ 8 - W 2 9.2 4.4 4.7 9. 9 8.2

i'lvL

SE32-36-9-W2 9 ⁰ 7 3.0 3.2 4.4 7.2 13.7

WvL

N I·J 3 3 - 3 5 - 8 - ~l 2 12.8 5.8 3.0 3~2 8.8 ^{1(1 ..L.Va4. ,.,} WvL

sill 3 - 3 7 ~ 1 0 -

w

2 29.5 6.9 10.4 4.8 22.7 30.5

vhrL

NE3.3~.36-9-1f12 5.4 10.6 19.0 1L2

~--tlhL

SE -35-8-W2 20. 3 10.0 3.0 6.8 9. 8 6.6

1e 11-48-0

@

40

282

5. 1

9. 3

25~ ..,

I

2 5' 0

11. 2

2' 5

.oodale .a_ska o

heat oey . ey

~arl ey 'opoff

1 s a_

:a1:oley

N

1

·r

ECL

-~ 5- ~\:1

HmFL

E L

l3 L

ield of rain bu/acre) epartment f Soil Scien e field Fertilizer Tests tubble Land - Urea- hosphates

c

i.eld. 0 8 11 5 87 110 5

0 ⁰ 1. 0 ' 5 .. 1 ⁰ 0,1 0 ,

,,

f '

1 8 0

0 "

ium

sphat e

+

Ammon um n ^{a e}

Amm ^~J•o ph CLt e

A

on s

mm ^{J~ f' J. r l . j} :p 11 ^l. e a

95

i l Test suits - 106 Field Strip ts.

A. Stubble fertili.zer tests o Gray Wooded. Soils@

rmer Bash forth Lindquist Parkin

n inhandl lson

1b 28 15 15 20 6 33

hool of Agriculture

A. Bruce 28

R.

Bruce 57

olidge 42

ay 68

Froh 16

od ^{( l )} 38

od (2) ⁵⁹

Hamilton 15

Hult 21

trace 10

Longr~ire 57

llace 42

l l i n 47

~ N

3

ere 2

(11~39) (7~26) 0··~ 3.4) 02-28) (2-12)

0<1~85)

f t •.

Plot average and range ilable

P

1

11 3~29)

14 (6-38) 1501-19)

:n

01~64)

12 3=~2 ) 10(4-· )

operative Tests.

07-47) 17(6~26)

(20-213) 1904-27) (19-109) 13(8-21) (26-128) ~~209-98)

01-23) 10(6-13)

(15-135) 2:4(7-51) (20-13,.0 19(8~32)

(9~21) 10(3-16)

05-29) 12(7~26)

(2~24) 21(8-44,)

(24~247) 9(6-12)

(12-171) 23(16-31) (21-111) 9(6 l l )

l ere 6 in.

2-'11(160~310)

386(210-580)

392 .~90-,490)

255(200-32 ) 251(150- GO)

1276(860~1820)

1058(6 0-1380) 614( 0"''1620) 10 1 ( 10-1 1 0)

756(530~1110) 1180(630~19 0)

939(6;?,0~11 0) 610(3 0-930) 5<:12 ( 60~1170) 766(570~1040)

1269(870-1630) 7 61 ( 31 0,'= 1 0 8 0) 310( 50- ⁰⁾

'

s

D. Urea-phosphate tests.

Goodale Hoey Popoff Roth

NO -N

3

lb/acre 2 ft.

64(?6~100) 74(45~115)

20(9-39) 4003-89)

E. N-

acement tests.

Bellamy Honey Shields

54(24-181) 8(5-13) 24(10-43)

F.

Proca1 tests.

Dycl{

Christoph

34 146

G.

Poly-phosphate test

Schrader 7803-245)

Available ~P

lb re 6 in.

26(8-46) 11(7-17) 29(12=48) 16 (10-28)

11(4-17) 11(4-21) 22(7=44)

26 14

13(8=21)

Exchangeable

K

lb ere 6 in.

1146(870-1930) 717(620-800) 1355(870- 250)

755(570=1000)

579(390-860) 281 (130=430) 945(400-1460)

315 570

J.

1

Yield of

Farmer Soil Type

Bellamy MSiCL

Birch Hills NE20-46-24-W2 Wheat

Honey WvL

Lintlaw SE5-37-9-W2 Wheat

ields WL

komis NE30-29-21·-W2 eat

(1) Square Yard (2) Combine

ain (bu/acre) ~ Department of i l Science Field Fertilizer Tests on Stubble Land ~ Nitrogen Placement

YIELD INCREASE

Banded with see:i Side-banded

11~48~0 23-23-0 ^{25~17-0 27~14-0} 23-23-0 25-17-0

Check Yield @ 40 @ 87 @ 118 @ 145 @ 87 @ 118

9.1 2.0 5~1 6.0 1.8 0.3 5.6

5.6 4.4 14.1 14.0 12.6 5.7 7.1

(1)19.8 1.7 6.0 3.1 1.0 3.6 6.2

(2)19.0 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.4 3.7 2.8

2 -14-0 145

~0.2

14.4 3,3 4.8

Hoey Popoff

Bel lam odal Ho ey Roth

iel s

t l s :L1

shf tl'l Lindquist

:Haven

Wils n

s

^:c

In he;

SoJ.l

L L

'

.!..J

L L

llc34

re

2 ~; 6 2

s ^SU. e 'Wi

4

~:

4 4

e

'l ":

,J_.i.. ,,

ro

-!~

L

is re

7 21 ~)

u 1

/

Spring Moisture Conditions and owing Season Rainfall ( nt'd)

Soil Av. pth Est=Lni::lted Grovving Season A1r ~ Che k Texture of ·v u .L l a. b 1 e Ila i nfa11 yield

Moist So.il ist.u.re (inches) Bu ere (inches) (.inches)

Bed dome SiCl-LL 27 3.6 5.76 14.7

Casavant Si

c

22 <1. 0 3.69 l ~1 0 8

Clark L 31 4.1 2.61 19.1

Denis SiC-CL ^{il ')}

.. ,.,

7.0 1.92 1L8

Frolek FSL 34 3.1 8~52 l L 9

Ford L ₃₆ 4.8 7.30 16.0

Hayward C-HvCL 17 3.1 2~18 12.7

Hum rey

c

^{36 6. l 3.70} 16.6

Keith SiCL-CL 36 5o4 2cy87 25.6

Nowosad SiC 36 6.0 4.30 206)5

Peckham C-CL 23 3.8 6.55 19.8

Porter SiC 26 4.3 2.63 18.9

Powell HvC 32 5.9 2.66 22 0

Sh9-rp L 35 4.7 1. 00 12 4

Stadnick CL 33 5.0 1.76 12.4

Tosh L-CL 31 4,.,4 2.94 27el

Yakubowich L-LL 35 tJ • l 2.16 EL 9

Young VL-CL 24 3.2 4.97 15 4

Zunti CL 34 5.1 7.51 18.5

A. Bruce ³ ₆ ^{6.6 2.80 27.9}

R.

^{uce 3 6 6.6 2.25 16.1}

Clay L 3 6 4.8 2.60 17.2

Coolidge CL 2 l 3.2 7®23 30.2

Froh CL 3 6 5.4 ⁰ 70· 16.7

B.

Good CL 3 6 5.4 2~20 22o0

Good CL 3 6 5.4 2.20 34 3

Hanli 1 ton L 2 .0 2o7 2.60 9.2

Hult L 1 5 2&0 6.73 21.3

La trace SiL-SiCL 3 0 4.5 3.20 19 8

Longmire HvC 4 8 8.8 2.85 26.8

llace L 3 6 4.8 ^30.7

Walli.n LL 3 6 4.2 18.'7

':':'

an.d_

(),,. t'

green

ri

th

',·

~ ) J

nl on

L residues a.re added to ^P

of _;!

"or it

latter

~rea:r'l un.cler .fi.e ld_

one of our ve

per ·1cre

an

use o:f' carbon dat:ing

or age~ of

2

/;cid 20 l

+

I"

. )

.7

1 ^{1 •. i~}

TOT

'.l

signi in the the

f'rom the Roil

11igh

received

of

appear' to affect

pm\fer o.f' the from the

of

in

Hedium

Lm.r 1

Hedium .7

fiigh ₀ ^q _'

either

in the

colw1m data shows the

under

of

In

lov.r moisture

rrl

6 {

3.

of

>.rould -·:rom f'

of the

to

If vm

into

for

• 6

lbt3 o:f r1.l

and in "&v!1ich

response

;:_;

,.,

\'Ji

ment n

of

Game n:iL

of the ferti zer

I

relation

can

.-,1'

l?.

Lion Lhc n.i

s infor1n J.t.lon

ut.Lll th·,t one can

ami mc·•sure tho

of 21,

in t}le spr:b1g indicated V1at 12 lhs of' l:Jt.( ~d c..lur:Lng

the Soil Testing I,ab in Table

6

Comparison

Sampling date 2ft

This year v:e V·1e transfon.nations

yet been compiled~

field jusL of Table

7

,June

6

chmo 26

September 6

20

a number

7

if

field

'

i

the

ni

l·''

·~ l

UJ1der

multiple

frt ll!l the su;:rnary of our

are still experimenting vriLh ·V1e

data ami must use rmch as

If I can inter-

pret this info:r'rrtation

7

fertilizer nitroE::en to '·wvwver, are for 1 of our treatments 1;J"ere included in

that have had excess nitro,::,en, a l

the nitrate niLrogen in the ctffecte<i

the crop yield. In the vvet '.rear of

nJ crop

yield, wHh eac~t

3. 5

]J)fl of

on last

year

On

individual field

6

ttccounted for.

'l'able 8

Hultiple

regression

" of

S

(yield)

19o3

^{.J ~-\}

_'+

y = • ^{zes:~ bl) X}

3

~~~ ₀ X

4

⁾

+ .

^X ₆

⁾

In an independent study~ de calculated t'1at moisture use

on fields and 3 on the

conclunionn or Rennie and de

,, l' i

t.

poor physical sLructure and tatiom;

9

Potmds N in soil

5

required₃

L N H VH

nitro~_;en~suppl;;ring pm.rer of

suppl;y-i •1g power in rela.

crop

Black

0 0

on our to soil crop by three ;;rears of soil correlation vmrk.

imately

lbs of

ln ::;orne c more

in

e

the

"been l:i.tt.le

vrith

l )

' . ^~