Home » Wheat (Page 2)
Category Archives: Wheat
In-Furrow Placement of Urea Products with Wheat Seed
Its that time of year I always get the question of “How much urea can I put in the furrow?”. My answer is always two fold first, I wouldn’t recommend it, its a risky venture. Even though I know some do it. Second, my research shows very little is any value from N in furrow. I like P but N just doesn’t show me any return. So for me the process is high risk, with little or no potential for return. But with blog I turn to our purple friend up north to share what their research has sown.
Brian
Guest Authors Kansas State University
Lucas Haag, Agronomist-in-Charge, Southwest Research-Extension Center, Tribune lhaag@ksu.edu
Alan Schlegel, retired
Dorivar Ruiz Diaz, Nutrient Management Specialist ruizdiaz@ksu.edu
To save time and cost, some wheat producers may be thinking about adding a little extra nitrogen (N) as urea or UAN to their phosphorus fertilizer through the drill with the seed. This would either be in addition to, or instead of, any preplant N applications.
While a minimum preplant N application of 20 to 40 lbs N per acre is often desirable, especially in no till production systems, there are risk involved when placing urea containing fertilizers in direct seed contact. Traditionally, we have suggested that no urea or UAN solution be placed in contact with the seed. With the continued adoption of air-seeders a common question we receive from producers is can urea, or enhanced urea products be placed in-furrow.
Methods of early-season nitrogen applications
If the starter fertilizer can’t be “spiked” with urea to add extra N, how can the necessary 20 to 40 pounds of N be applied? Subsurface banding (knifing) of N as either anhydrous ammonia, liquid UAN, or dry product will result in the greatest N use efficiency by the wheat crop. This is especially true for no-till wheat production.
If knifed N applications are not used, the next best application method would be surface banding (dribbling) of UAN solution in streams on 15- to 18-inch centers. Broadcasting urea, ammonium nitrate, or UAN applications are not generally as efficient as subsurface banding, but they are often the best choice due to equipment, logistics, or weed management considerations. Broadcast applications of N will have the most consistent performance if followed by light incorporation, precipitation, or irrigation.
Direct seed placement of nitrogen
When placing starter fertilizer in direct contact with wheat seed, producers should use the following guidelines:
The problem with placing urea-containing fertilizer with the seed is that urea is initially converted to ammonia and may be toxic to plant roots if the wheat seed is placed in direct contact with the fertilizer. Producers may hear of someone who has placed urea in direct seed contact and seemed to have no problems, but there are also many cases where urea-containing N fertilizers has injured the developing seedling and reduced or delayed emergence significantly. The risk of injury is greater in drier soils, at higher soil pH levels, and at higher N rates. High soil pH favors a higher concentration of ammonia as compared to ammonium as urea hydrolyzes. There is significant risk associated with placing urea-containing fertilizers in direct seed contact.
The chart below shows how soil texture affected the level of wheat germination when urea-N was applied with the seed in a K-State greenhouse study. The wheat was well watered in this study, but urea-N placed with the seed still reduced germination, especially in the sandy soil. The readings shown below were taken after 10 days. With the high rates of urea used in this study, it is possible that more damage to the seedlings would occur with time as the urea continues to hydrolyze into ammonia.
Field studies have also shown reduced wheat stands due to in-furrow placement of urea. Across 5 site years in western Kansas the placement of urea in-furrow has resulted in decreased stands at spring greenup compared to the control (Figure 2).
The stand reduction becomes especially noticeable at higher rate of N. One of the challenges of understanding the risk of seedling injury is that the magnitude of injury varies by field conditions an years. In some years very little reduction may be evident, even at higher rates of N, while in other years, stand reductions (and their associated impact on yield) is very evident. As an example at Tribune in 2017, reduction in stand caused by urea placement with seed, and their effect on yield were quite evident (Figures 3 and 4).
Stands were reduced 32 and 63% compared to the control when 30 and 60 lbs of N as urea were applied in-furrow (Figure 3). This resuled in yield reductions of 14 and 40%, respectively (Figure 4).
If you’d like to apply extra N directly in the seed furrow, one option is to use a controlled-release form of N, such as ESN. As shown in figure 4, at N application rates of 30 lbs/ac and less, where ESN-N was applied in-furrow, wheat yields were essentially the same as where the N was applied pre-plant, and higher compared to the same amount of N applied as urea. At the highest rate of application in the study, 60 lbs/ac, even ESN resulted in stand and grain yield reductions.
Also, air seeders that place the starter fertilizer and seed in a band an inch or two wide, or side band the fertilizer relative to the seed, provide some margin of safety because the concentration of the fertilizer and seed is lower in these diffuse bands. In this scenario, adding a little extra urea containing N fertilizers to the starter less likely to injure the seed – but it is still a risk.
Here is a great video by Dr. Haag.
How do you handle your soil sample….
It’s that time of year where wheat producers are in all stages of prep across the state, the graze out folks are wondering when the rains will hit to get the dusted in wheat up and the grain only folks are prepping grain drills or dealing with summer crop harvest. While this blog is focused on the wheat producers it should be acknowledged as a work of caution for anyone who pulls soil samples in environments where the temps during sampling can be above the mid 80’s.
Following some fantastic work by our Wild Cat Soil Fertility Counterparts (see blog) we dug into the same question of how does soil sample handling post collection impact the results. Dr. Ruiz-Diaz results on the impact of storage on nitrogen values was not surprising. But we wanted to go the next step and add in sample bag type.
Our Project
We collected a soil ground and homogenized. Placed in three types of bags Ziploc, Commercial (resin lined paper that is closed) and SWFAL bag (breathable material). Placed samples in a mini-van (Field) and brought a group onto campus (Office). With both sets of samples we had temperature loggers collecting hourly data. Every three days we collected four samples from each location determined moisture content and ran a full spectrum soil analysis including CO2 burst. The soil we used had a OM of 1.1% and soil pH of 6.1
Now let’s back up. Why was the KSU data not surprising. Well for those certified and honorary nitrogen ninjas we understand that the N-cycle processes of mineralization, immobilization, and nitrification are biological reactions which are significantly impacted by soil moisture and soil temperature. But the short and quick version is that the microbes that convert organic N to mineral N (NH4) and convert NH4 to NO3 like warm conditions with good soil moisture. So, when you pull soil samples, hopefully there is some moisture in the soil and then you place it in a bag and seal it. This creates an effective greenhouse environment where moisture cannot escape and is the perfect place for microbes to microbial things. Therefore, you expect the organic cycle and nitrogen cycle to move and move quickly through the processes of mineralization, ammonification, and nitrification.
Back to the data.
First, we have the average daily temperatures from the sitting vehicle and the lab. On days 2-5 the average temp of the van was over 100°, after that the temps dropped. One thing to remember is the temp of the van is an average of a wide-ranging highs and lows between morning and midday while the office temperature being stable throughout the entire day.
What is the most interesting and revealing data may be the soil moisture of the samples. Unfortunately, day 3 samples went straight to the oven, but you can see by day 6 the SFWAL bags (yellow line) had dried significantly while it wasn’t until day 27 did the Commercial bags in the van (Black line w/ triangle) show signs of drying. It’s also important to note that while there are two lines (Field and Office) for the Commercial bags and Ziploc bags, but only one for the SWFAL bags. That is because for all variables measured there was never a significant difference between the SWFAL Field value and the SWFAL Office value.
We are going to start off with the variable that changed the most, NO3-N. This is also the form of N that is measured in most soil test. With a starting point of 3.4 lbs. N ac-1 (based on a six inch soil sample depth) by day 6 the Field samples had jumped to 15.6 lbs. The office samples had much slower increase in NO3 with it taking 9 days to reach 10 lbs. You can also see that the error bars start showing up in the samples after about two weeks. The bars show the range in the sample results of a treatment. The interesting thing we saw was that the location within the van was significant. We set each replication of samples in a different spot in the van, the front seat, middle seat, and rear. The thermometers set with each replications showed that each area of the van had slightly differing temperature, which in turn affected the samples.
Ammonium (NH4-N), which is only reported by a few labs is also impacted by the storage location and bag type, however not to the sample level as NO3-N. Effectively the SWFAL bags and all samples taken to the office maintained consistent NH4 levels. The Com bag and Ziplocs left in the van however saw a significant increase in NH4 over time, basically a 2 lb per day increase.
Of the other measured parameters such as potassium, sulfur, and CO2 burst data were effected. These will be discussed more in depth in a peer reviewed publication and factsheet.
Take Home’s from the Work
While the majority of the nutrients were relatively un affected by the bag type or storage those that are more heavily influenced by organic matter and biological activity where, this includes many of the soil health parameters. The use of SWFAL soil bags resulted in data that was not impacted by storage or time. While most clients of the OSU lab use these bags, more than one samples been brought into the county via a sealed Ziploc baggie. However the majority of the soil samples collected are placed into the resin lined paper bags and sealed. This data set is also important to those who use laboratories that run the Haney test which includes measures of NO3, NH4, Organic N, CO2 respiration and H2O extracted Organic C. It is critical that when using these type of bags that the samples be brought into climate controlled facilities as soon as possible. Its good to remember when looking at the data that the soil we used had a OM of 1.1%, initial NO3 of 3.4 lbs. and NH4 of 14 lbs. A soil with a higher OM% could have even greater change. Another viable is if the soil sample depth is greater than 6”. If your sample depth is 8” then the value is 33% higher.
Questions or comments feel free to reach out via email or social media.
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management b.arnall@okstate.edu
Did in-furrow starter products increase yields?
Bronc Finch, Precision Nutrient Management Post-Doctorial Scientist.
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist.
As winter wheat planting time approaches this question arises often when fertilizer decisions are being made. There are several products that have been marketed to wheat producers that contain combinations of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) as well as some plant essential micro-nutrients. These products are designed to be placed with the seed as an in-furrow application at planting and provide nutrients earlier in the season than traditional dry spreading methods. While the state of Oklahoma macro-nutrient deficiencies are often corrected with traditional fertilizing methods and micro-nutrient deficiencies are not commonly witnessed in winter wheat; these products are often sold with the expectation yield increases can still occur. This has led to the question can these fertilizer products improve winter wheat yield production regardless of soil analysis results? To answer this Oklahoma State University developed a study evaluating eleven different starter fertilizer options available to producers (Table 1). Of these eleven fertilizer options three are commonly available fertilizers, and eight of them are products available through specific companies. The study was carried out at three locations a year for two years.
To compare the ability of these products to increase yield beyond the recommendation of soil test results, pre-plant soil samples were collected to a 6-inch depth at each of these research sites. Soil analysis of the five-site years used in this evaluation (Table 2) reported no deficiency at the Lake Carl Blackwell research farm. Deficient concentrations of P (< 32.5 ppm) was recorded at the North 40 research site and Perkins research station, along with a low pH (4.8) at the Perkins research station. Acidic soils are of concern for crop production having many detrimental impacts to root production, however there is also influence on nutrient availability. Aluminum concentrations are often higher in low pH soils which will result in root pruning and the binding of applied P, increasing the concerns when soil analysis P concentrations are already deficient.
Evaluation of these commercially available products at non-nutrient deficient sites show no influence of any in-furrow placed fertilizer product on winter wheat grain yield compared to an unfertilized check, yielding an average of 52 bu ac-1 in 2014-2015, and 93 bu ac-1 in 2015-2016 (Figure 1). Figure 1, along with the following figures, show the mean and variability of winter wheat grain yield of each of the commercially available starter fertilizer product treatments, as well as the check treatment which received no fertilizer application. The column for each treatment represents the grain yield in bu ac-1 which is the average of three replications the variability of grain yield at an individual treatment can be observed by the error bars which depict the range of grain yields within a specific treatment. The larger the error bar the less consistent the yield and the harder it is to separate out statistical differences in yield.
When the soil test P level was below 32.5 ppm, some P containing starter fertilizers where able to increase winter wheat grain yield in 2014-2015 growing season at North 40. Products containing 40 – 52% P; MAP, DAP + Awaken and MES-Z, improved grain yield by up to 14 bu ac-1 compared to the check. At the North 40 locations APP did not show the same increase in yields as DAP and MAP. The addition of micro-nutrients by Awaken combined with DAP yielded a 20 bu ac-1 increase over Awaken used alone, but no increase compared to DAP or MAP used alone. Similarly, the addition of Zinc by MES-Z yielded similar to the base product, MAP.
When P deficiency was compounded by a low pH such as observed at Perkins there was response to more in-furrow products. Compared to the check, increases up to 32 bu ac-1 in winter wheat grain yield was found by DAP, MES-10, MES-Z, Nachurs + CornGrow, and DAP + Awaken. Further investigation revealed the source of P fertilizer (DAP, MAP, and APP) reported no difference in yield averaging 55 bu ac-1. The addition of S and K by Nachurs was not different from APP, which is a similar liquid fertilizer, averaging 52 bu ac-1. Micro-nutrient additions by Awaken combined with DAP (56 bu ac-1), and by CornGrow combined with Nachurs (56 bu ac-1) did not increase winter wheat grain yield compared to each other or their respective base products of DAP (59 bu ac-1) and Nachurs (53 bu ac-1). Similarly, additions of S by MES-10 and S and Zn by MES-Z yielded similar to one another with 65 and 72 bu ac-1respectively but produced 14 bu ac-1 more yield on average than the base product MAP. At Perkins, which is a well-drained sandy loam soil, we often see a yield response to S when yield levels so seeing a response to the products that added 7 lbs of S, was not un-expected.
With these results in mind and the current cost of fertilizers, the addition of fertilizer products on non-limiting soils is not expected to result in an increase in winter wheat grain yield. Also, many of these products contain micro-nutrients that are rarely found to be at deficient levels for much of the winter wheat production region in Oklahoma. Therefore, the use of these products on non-nutrient limiting soils would unnecessarily increase the cost of production and decrease the return on investment. However, that is not to say these products should be avoided completely, in the event of a nutrient limiting soils some products show potential benefit for correct soil deficiencies. As observed some P containing products were able to provide adequate P concentrations for increasing yields and overcoming low pH conditions. This work along with previous work evaluating efficient fertilizer management suggest the correction of a nutrient deficient soil to be more important than the source of the nutrients and supports the need for soil testing and following recommendations.
This blog is a summation of Mr. Jonathon Williams thesis which was published in the Journal of Agricultural Sciences. Impact of in-furrow fertilizer on winter wheat grain yield and mineral concentration https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859622000557
SIDEBAR
So we do small plot research to me in control of as many variables as possible. But all farmers and consultants know that fields are are variable and the results of small plots do not always translate well. I get that 100%, but for me as a scientist I need to understand the little things so that I can apply the knowledge on a large scale. Just last month I wrote a blog about cutting phosphorus rates BLOG. The third major take home of the blog was:
A composite soil sample is an AVERAGE of the field. If your average is right at the ok level (pH of 5.6ish and M3P of 30 ppm), then half of your field is below optimum and will benefit from P.“
That applies to what we learned from the above study. We found if soil test said nutrient was adequate we did not see a response of adding more. However if we combine the two blogs, if your composite soil test comes back just at the optimum level, there is a good chance at least 45% of field is below optimum and may respond.
So guess what my recommendation is. Soil SAMPLE, do it right (proper method and core numbers) and do it at the highest resolution you can afford, at least once.
Finally Do Not Skip on Nutrients when soil test says there is a need.
BA
Any questions or comments feel free to contact me. b.arnall@okstate.edu
Phosphorus decisions, Is it worth cutting P?
With the current conditions and input cost many wheat producers are considering cutting back on inputs. I can’t disagree with the plan, but I would caution against what you cut. If you have read any of my past blogs, or seen me speak, you should know I’m all for cutting back on pre-plant nitrogen (N). Based on some recent trials I would not argue cutting the potassium (K) side, but phosphorus (P) that’s another story that we will walk through in this blog.
First and foremost, soil testing is the key to P management. If your soil test is below the critical threshold for the test you use, 32.5 for Mehlich 3 (M3P), then you need to add phos. We have enough work that shows current recommendations work for P in wheat. Reeds paper Evaluation of incorporated phosphorus fertilizer recommendations on no-till managed winter wheat Link to Paper goes over soil test recommendations in no-till and the recent double crop soybean project Double Crop P and K Blog highlights the importance of P fertility, regardless of yield level. Also if your soil test is below a 5.5 and you haven’t limed (Liming is the best solution, Band-aids not so cheap Blog ), then the next best option is adding additional P to alleviate the aluminum toxicity Band-aids for low pH Blog. In-short if the fields soil test P and or pH is below optimum you should not forgo P application.
But the primary reason I am writing this blog is for those looking at fields with composite soil test that is right around the critical thresholds, and they are trying to make the call on to apply P or not to apply P. Even on fields with soil test values in the good level, I am usually in favor of banding in-furrow fertilizer wheat, but not because of the same reasons I am for corn. With corn you are planting in cool soils and the availability of nutrients like P is lower in cool wet soils. For wheat cold soil isn’t the concern until we reach the end of the planting window. It will serve as a bit of a “pop-up” as the crop comes out of dormancy in the spring. I have also seen little to no value of N applied in furrow. I see same response to DAP (18-46-0), MAP (11-52-0), and TSP (0-46-0) when all applied at same rate of P. Meaning it was the P not N making the difference.
For me the reason I still recommend getting a little phosphate out even when the soil test comes back is that the great majority of fields have a large range of variability. Looking at a set of 650 grid sampled fields across Oklahoma and Kansas it showed on average soil pH 6.0 and M3P was 34 ppm. Both pH and P are at adequate/optimum levels. However, the average is usually somewhere between the low and high point and in this data set and the range of soil pH was 1.8 units and the range in M3P was 67 ppm. That meant on average of the 648 field with pH values the average difference between low pH and high pH was 1.8 units and the difference between low P and high P was 64 ppm.
The field below is from Kingfisher county and was sampled at a resolution of 10 acres per sample. This is a fairly course resolution for grid sampling but provides a great view of how variable our soils can be. The field average pH is 5.3, which is below optimum but our aluminum tolerant wheats would be able to handle fairly well. For the P the average is 22 ppm which needs about 18 lbs of P2O5 to max yields. If the farmer applied a flat rate of 20 lbs there would be significant forage loss on about 65% of the field, for grain only about 45% of the field due to underapplication of P. Note that low P and low pH are not correlated well, meaning the areas low in pH are not always low in P.
Banding P makes it more efficient because it slows the rate of tie. However, we have plenty data that says broadcast applied P is still a great option, even after planting. So what are my take homes from this blog?
First: If you are grazing wheat get down 40-50 lbs of N pre. But I have plenty of data the pre-plant N on grain only wheat is not needed. I have the same amount of data that shows the only value of in-furrow N for grain only is that it forces you to plant more seeds, because it just lowers stand.
Second: When it comes to wheat pay attention to Phosphorus and soil pH. Even our acid tolerant wheats preform better in neutral soil pHs, especially forage wise.
Third: A composite soil sample is an AVERAGE of the field. If your average is right at the ok level (pH of 5.6ish and M3P of 30 ppm), then half of your field is below optimum and will benefit from P.
Fourth: If you can band P great, but if you cant broadcast is still a viable option. Do Not Skip P when soil test says there is a need.
Questions or comments please feel free to reach out.
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu
Top-dress Wheat with P and K ??
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Extension Specialist
Hunter Lovewell, Past PNM MS student.
Original Blog Name: Managing P and K in a wheat Double-crop Soybean System.
I planned to wait until the soybean yields came in to share the data from this project, but the wheat results are just too interesting this year.
So the trial posed the question, when is the best time to apply the phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) for the soybean crop in a wheat double crop soybean system, if any is needed above what is applied for the wheat crop. We applied the wheat’s P&K at establishment, but the soybeans P&K was applied either at wheat establishment, top-dress wheat timing, or post wheat harvest pre soybean planting. We used the sources of granular triple super phosphate (0-46-0) and potash (0-0-60) for all applications. We hypothesized the wheat crop would not benefit from the soybeans portion of P&K and that the top-dress application timing for the soybeans P&K would result in the greatest soybean yields.
So far, we have six site years with completed cycles with locations at the Eastern Research Station (ERS) near Haskell, Oklahoma, Ballagh Family Research Farm (BF) near Newkirk, Oklahoma, Skagg Family Farm (SF) near Lamont, Oklahoma, and Lake Carl Blackwell Research Farm (LCB) near Perry, Oklahoma. The research was conducted during the 2019-2020 growing season and the 2020-2021 growing season. For the 2021-2022 cycle we added two more locations one again on the Skagg Family farm and the second on a new cooperator, O’Neil Farms (OF) near Ponca City. For all locations no P or K was applied by the farmers at any point, but they did manage IPM. See location descriptions below.
The first two years of work is written up in Mr. Hunter Lovewell’s thesis titled “EFFECTS OF PHOSPHOROUS AND POTASSIUM APPLICATION TIMING ON A WHEAT DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEAN SYSTEM” which I can share with those interested. To be honest, Hunter had a couple tough seasons. Basically where wheat did well, beans typically failed and where you had good beans the previous wheat had failed. All the same he had some interesting results. What follows is pulled from his conclusions.
“While a significant response to the application of P and K was limited, the results show that there are environments in which the wheat crop can benefit from additional P and K fertilizer applied for the soybean crop. In the case of the soil (SF-SH) with low M3P and an acidic soil pH, the additional P applied during the winter wheat growing season, intended for soybeans, alleviated the aluminum toxicity issues with acidic pH, increasing wheat yields. Beyond the single location with low soil test P and pH no other significant response was found to the addition of and P. This may be explained in that most locations were only marginally deficient P and the majority of the varieties used in the study were considered to have acid soil tolerance. Penn and Arnall (2015) found that cultivars with aluminum tolerance had increased P use efficiency. The BF location showed a significant wheat grain yield response to the K fertilization, but the additional K applied for the soybean crop showed no benefit for the wheat crop. While there was no significant increase in soybean grain yield to the additional K fertilizer observations suggest that the application of K fertilizer for soybeans may be of benefit. As was mentioned before the double-crop system is susceptible to yield-limiting conditions, heat, and moisture, due to the maturity of the crop during the peak summer months. The soybean grain yields achieved in this study were all below the previous five-year yield average for all the locations. The low achieved yields and crop stress may have limited this study’s ability to identify a significant response to the application of fertilizer. “
So, one of the most interesting finding from the first six sites was that topdressing P increased yield of the wheat crop on the soil that had low pH and P. And since the P recs applied were only considering STP values and not soil pH, we had underapplied P for the wheat.
Now moving on to the 2021-22 season. Well as most of the famers know, this season has been a doozy. That said, we were not able to establish the treatments until February 1st. Therefor in the case of the 2021-22 wheat season the first application of P&K was made at top-dress timing and then the second application was made post wheat harvest. So, we are unable to say how a preplant wheat P&K application would have performed. But the wheat grain yield response to P&K was better than I could have ever imagined.
The rain post application (Feb 1st) was marginal but better than other areas in the central/southern Plains. There was about 1” of precipitation in February, almost 3” in March and under 0.2” in April. May rains for the OF site near Burbank aided in allowing the yields to climb, maxed out at 82 bushels per acre, while the SF-Nfld missed out on many of the late rains and yields topped out at 39 bushels.
At both sites there is a clear and distinct response to P fertilizer. Note the N and NK treatments significantly lower than all other treatments. The last column on each figure title NPK is the average of all other treatments that only received the wheats P&K rate and had yet had the soybeans P&K applications.
We were able to statistically analyze the locations together by calculating a relative yield for each location. This is done by dividing the yield of each plot by the yield of the N only treatment, we did this for each replication. We then ran a t-test to look at significant treatment difference, so below any treatments that has the letters above the columns, such as an ab and b, are not statistically different at a 95% level.
The relative yield data was able to confirm that across both locations an application of P in February significantly increased yields at a consistent level of 30-50%. It is interesting that while the NP+K+ treatment almost sorts out as being statistically the highest.
While I am not even close to suggesting that you should delay application of P fertilizer in wheat production, I am a big fan of in-furrow applications, this work does point to opportunities. Such as the ability to return to the field after the wheat is up and apply broadcast P if perhaps you could not at planting. But specifically, the potential for in-season Variable Rate phosphorus based upon crop response, maybe a P-Rich strip. What I can tell you this means is that I have more work to do. First, I need a better understand of when and where this is possible. Then it is time to figure out how to use this to our advantage to more efficiently use P fertilizer.
I do want to reiterate, I am not suggesting to move away from Preplant P nor in-furrow.
Keep an eye out for the soybean data because hopefully we catch a few good rains and find out if the timing of P&K will impact the double crop yields.
I want to send a big Thank you to all the cooperators who have put up with me and my time over years to get this data and the Oklahoma Soybean Board for their continued support of this project.
Feel free to send any questions for comments my way at b.arnall@okstate.edu
Utilizing N fixing biologicals.
In the past couple years significant efforts have been made to produce N fixing microorganisms that can be utilized in an agriculture system. The atmosphere is 78% N2 and prokaryotic microorganisms such as the bacteria species Azotobacter, Bacillus, Clostridium, and Klebsiella take that N2 gas and turn it into plant available NH4. These organisms have been around providing nitrogen for plants, for as long as there has been plants. In agriculture we have heavily utilized their relationship with legumes however have struggled bringing them into other realms of production. Naturally they tend to be found in areas that are very low levels of nitrogen. For example, prokaryotes were found in the un-fertilized check of the 130-year-old Magruder Plots but are not found any other treatment that receives fertilizer organic or commercial.
Now there are several products marketed as containing N fixing microorganisms suited for use in today’s corn, sorghum, and wheat production. While I have an active research program evaluating the use of such materials in Oklahoma, this blog will not address what works or how well. This blog will touch upon my thoughts on how to utilize a technology such as this if you pull the trigger to implement.
So there is one key to getting a ROI on products that create plant available nitrogen, and it’s a really simple key.
Under Apply Nitrogen
If you apply enough or more N than the crops needs, then there is ZERO value in a product that creates more N. For example, applying one of these products in your 250-bushel yield goal corn after you’ve already laid down 300 lbs of N preplant. Unless you lose it all to leaching, your probability of seeing a ROI on your biological investment is pretty poor. I have a hard time understanding the thought process behind paying for a N fixing product and not lowering your fertilizer rate. I can see one of two reasons. 1) You believe you historically under apply N and are losing yield because of such 2) Are in an environment which has a high potential of late season N losses, and you are unable to make recovery applications.
So what to do if using a N Fixer? I do not have the confidence yet to say, “Apply X product, it will produce Y lbs of N, so cut your rate by Y lbs”. That uncertainty is one of the greatest challenges, not knowing will I get 10 lbs or 40 lbs? If I did, then I would just subtract that off my planned rate. Side note, as someone who has been doing on farm N rate studies for a decade plus, I would have to add that most were likely over applying by that much and could cut back anyways. For me the use of the N Fixers should force your hand into utilizing in-season N applications, regardless the crop. So that you can better predict or determine impact of the product.
This is where the use of a refence strip (N-Rich or Zero N) is the golden ticket. We need a way to quickly evaluate the amount of N the crop has access to. The N-Rich method works best when preplant N is drawn way back. I would add that reduced pre-plant is a great scenario for N Fixers. The N-Rich in comparison to the rest of the field will provide you guidance towards your in-season goals. If the N-Fixers are doing a great job the N-Rich will not be showing up any time soon and you can make your N rate adjustments accordingly. If you are a Pre-plant or die kind of farmer, then I say you need to pull back the reins on the preplant rate but give the N Fixers some room to add value and add in your Zero N strips. These will again let you observe what is happening in the soil apart from your fertilizer. If it is getting on the late side of in-season N and you cannot find your zero, might be a good time to walk away and hang up the fertilizer applicator keys. I have lots of blogs and pubs on the use of reference strip so send me a note if you want to dive further into these approaches.
Feel free to reach out with questions or comments. B.arnall@okstate.edu
Related Blogs
Its dry and nitrogen cost a lot, what now?
The title says a lot about the primary question I am receiving right now. And the latest long range “forecast” does not make me feel any better about the current situation. But it is what it is and many great plains wheat farmers are having to make a decision.
The current situation in the wheat belt is that we are dry to depth, when the 32 inch PAW is on short supply and this comes from a combination of no rain and above average temperatures.
Fertilizer prices are holding fairly strong, at expensive, and the wheat crop currently seems to be going in reverse. So what is a wheat farmer to do? If we are looking on the bright side the lack of moisture in the surface will help reducing any potential losses through urea volatilization. It does not make the potential for loss zero though. If I am bound and determined to fertilize now, I would be very selective of the source and method of application. The biggest driver, tillage and residue amounts.
- Conventional Till / No residue (plenty of bare soil showing) and small wheat-
- UAN via Streamer nozzles
- Why: With UAN (urea ammonium nitrate) you have a liquid N source that will get onto and into the soil and readily available nitrate. Streaming on will help concentrate the fertilizer and potential reduce any urea volatilization if any dews were to occur. Urea would sit until dissolved and lead to potential losses if the first moisture was heavy dew and not a incorporating rainfall.
- UAN via Streamer nozzles
- No-till / high residue (no bare soil showing)-
- Dry Urea
- Why: If Our residue is dry when the urea is spread the wind will help push it below the residue surface providing protection until a good rain. If UAN is applied to this dry or even slightly damp residue and not washed off with a rainfall in a week or so the amount of N tied up in that residue will likely be significant.
- Dry Urea
- The big wheat (very little bare soil, lots of wheat tissue.
- Urea or UAN Streamer
- Why not Flat fan. At least with the current status the wheat is not growing and bigger wheat has increasing levels of tip die back. So while UAN sprayed on actively growing wheat can be absorbed foliarly, stressed wheat can not do it as well. Plus the UAN that hits dead or damaged tissue will not make it into the plant. The UAN applied via flat fan will need incorporation via rain in a couple days.
- Urea or UAN Streamer
You may have caught in the paragraph above I said, “If I was bound and determined”. If I had the option I am not pulling the trigger until after I have received some good moisture. I fully expect and have already seen rigs running before every decent chance of rain. Unfortunately many of those chances have not panned out and that will remain my concern moving forward. I want to make sure we have some water in the tank before investing in the system.
But now we increase the risk/fear by waiting and the question I get is what if we don’t get good rains or don’t get good incorporating rains. The short answer is, if we don’t get rains the N application is the least of our concerns. If we approach March 15th and we have not had the rains needed to put a little water in the tank and incorporate the N then we are not likely looking at a bumper crop which will need N. What survives in that scenario will be living off deep soil water, and where there is deep soil water there is a good chance of deep N. The shallow soils will be so stressed that nutrient demand will be very little.
Now lets talk waiting and applying N. How late before we just say we are done. To answer I am going to draw from a data set I talk about a lot, the delayed N work by Dr. Souza. This study was started in the fall of 2016 and concluded with the 2020 wheat harvest. In all, twelve trials were established and achieved maturity. This study was designed to evaluate the recovery of winter wheat grain yield and protein after the crop was N stressed. Treatments included an untreated check, pre-plant application and ten in-season treatments. The application of in-season treatments was initiated when N deficiency was confirmed and treatments were applied in progressive order every seven growing days to the point of 63 growing days after visual deficiency (DAVD). A growing degree days is any day that the average daily temperature is at or above 40⁰ F. Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) was applied at a rate of 90 lbs N ac-1 for all treatments.
With this data we can answer two questions, first at what point did we lose yield compared to pre-plant and second how late could we apply and still increase yield above the check. So comparing to the pre lets us know how long could we wait with losing yield. Across the trials we lost yield three times by waiting too long, at LCB2017b that was 4/19, Lahoma18 it was around 3/30, and then Newkirk2020 we lost yield by waiting until 4/6. This data is why I am pretty comfortable waiting until mid March when and if needed. Now if we look at the check, that will tell us if things start improving late can we get still get a yield bump with added N. Newkirk 2020 was the only time and place we could increase yield above the zero after the 4/14 additions.
Take Home Message
My recommendation is that if you are not required to take delivery or needing to cover a lot of acres, i.e. time limited, I would not get in a hurry to apply N on this wheat crop. I think if we combine weather by market this a good time to wait and see. Once we get a rain and have some soil moisture it will be time to run the rigs. The crop currently does not need a lot of N so why spend the $. If things don’t improve by mid to late march, consider the wheat a cover and look towards a summer crop with the hopes of rains in April. If you need to take the crop to yield, then you can wait a while longer and still get a return on the N, with hopes the price could come down a bit.
Finally, While I don’t suggest running fertilizer in front of the first chance of rain, I would make sure I had an N-Rich strip on each and every single field. Strips can go out well past green up and serve a great purpose. The N-Rich strip will help you determine if the crop is able to mine any soil N or if the N tank is dry.
Feel free to reach out with questions or comments.
Brian Arnall Precision Nutrient Management Specialist.
b.arnall@okstate.edu
Special thanks to EDC Ag Products Co LLC for suppling NH4NO3 used in the delayed N project.
Relevant past blogs for your reading enjoyment.
The Easy Button for Nitrogen…….
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Extension Specialist.
The basics for nitrogen (N) fertilizer rate determination can be described in a mechanistic approach by the Stanford Equation NFert = ( NCrop – NSoil ) / Neff. This equations states that the N fertilizer rate is equal to the amount of nitrogen taken up by the crop minus the amount of nitrogen supply by the soil, divided by the efficiency of the nitrogen fertilizer used. I outline the importance of this equation in the blog “Components of a variable rate nitrogen recommendations“.
There are nitrogen “Easy Buttons” which utilizes averages collected over diverse environments to create accurate N rate recommendations. The best example of this is the yield goal rules of thumb such as wheats 2.0 lbs N per yield goal bushel minus soil test nitrate. Yield goals are generally calculated as the average of the best 3 out of 5 years, or the 5-year average times 20%. Also, the 2.0 lbs of N is more than what is in a bushel as it also adds in an efficiency factor or a 0.5 lbs per bushel cushion. This method and others like it provide an accurate N rate with slight probability of yield loss. However, the rec is often highly imprecise. Meaning that if I apply the method to 100 fields the average will be spot on, however if I look at the performance of the recommendation on a single field, I will likely be disappointed.
When it comes to nitrogen recommendations the Easy button method will use components which help ensure that the rate prescribed will maximize yield 90-95% of the time. For example, take the data presented in Figure 2. Over fifteen years of the long-term winter wheat fertility study near Lahoma, Oklahoma the average pounds of N per bushel to reach economic optimum nitrogen rate (EONR) was 1.6, however if 2.0 of N was applied per bushel yield would have been maximized 13 out of the 15 years. While 2.0 lbs. of N per bushel would have been quite accurate for maximizing yield, it would be highly imprecise as over the 15 years optimum pounds of N per bushel ranged from 0.0 to 3.2.
The trick to improving your N rate recommendation closer to a precise and accurate system is to obtain representative site-specific values for the Stanford Equation NFert = (NCrop – NSoil) / Neff.
Looking at the 15-year long-term data above the yields range from a low of 27 to a high of 88 bushels. Of those 15 years, I personally planted multiple years, usually sometime in October, and many of those years while sowing I could have guessed a range of 55-60 bushel, which just happened to be just above the 15-year average. It was not until February and March when the yield potential really started to express itself. Why, well there is a lot of weather between Oct to March, a lot of environmental positive and negative impacts on that final grain yield. This is the best timing to go out with approaches, models, or techniques to estimate yield potential for N rate recs.
While I am a big fan of soil testing, pre-plant soil samples for N are just a snap shot in time. But the While I am a big fan of soil testing, pre-plant soil samples for N are just a snapshot in time, but the nitrogen cycle Figure 3, will roar on after the soil sample is collected. Organic matter (OM) is the central component of this cycle and drives availability of NH4 and NO3 in the system. For each 1% OM in the top 6″ of the soil there is approximately 1000 lbs of organically bound N. The amount of N going into and out of OM pool is driven by C:N ratio of residues, soil temperature and soil moisture. While we very well what the mechanisms of the cycle are and can model the reactions quite well. Our inability to predict long term weather patterns is the greatest factor limiting our ability to predict future availability of NSoil.
This is where the reader should be asking “how can we get better site specific data” and I begin the discussion on why I have been promoting the of the Sensor Based Nitrogen Rate Calculator (SBNRC) and N-Rich strip method.
Lets talk about how the approach follows Stanford’s mechanistic approach to N management. First the Yield Potential component of the SBNRC which is related to NCrop. In effect researchers have built models over the past two decades that can correlate the NDVI collected from a sensor, such as the GreenSeeker, with the crops biomass and chlorophyll content. If given the number of days the crop has been growing it is possible to use the NDVI collected from the crop as a tool to predict final grain yield. The closer the wheat gets to hollow stem, or the corn gets to tassel, the better the prediction. One reason is that we have allowed more “environmental influence” to happen. Dr. Bill Raun, a founder of the SBNRC concept kept great discussion and data sets on his NUE.OKSTATE.edu website. On the “NUE Website on YP” he provides information on how yield prediction work while on the “NUE Website YP Library” he has not listed every algorithm created, and the math behind them, but also a recipe book for how anyone can create their own algorithm. While there are a lot post sensing stresses that can bring down final grain yield, the models that have been built and continually improved, do quite a good job on predicting final grain yield in-season. Resulting a much more site specific value for NCrop. The blog”Sensing the N-Rich Strip and Using the SBNRC” goes into a further discussion of using the online SBNRC.
That now leaves NSoil, which I will argue is at least as important as NCrop. As weather so greatly influences the nitrogen cycle it would be nice to have a weather station on every field paired with a 0-4 ft soil description which could be incorporated into a model. Given those might be out of reach we have found the the use of a reference strip, high N or low N, really provides an site specific estimate the of nitrogen the crop has access to. If the high N reference (N-Rich) strip is showing up that means the remainder of the field is N deficient. This may be due to losses or lack of mineralization, either way more N is needed. If the N-Rich strip is not evident then the crop is finding enough N outside of the reference strip to support its current growth. This could be that residual N or mineralization is high, or it could mean that crop growth and therefore N demand is low. Having the N check strip in each field allows for a season long evaluation. We can use NDVI to characterize how big or little of a response we have to N. We call this the Response Index (RI). An RI of 1.8 means that we could increase yield by 80% if we add adequate N, if the RI is 1.05 then we are looking at a potential increase of 5%. I have a previous blog which goes into the application of the reference strip. “Nitrogen Rich Strips, a Reminder“
Finally we combine the two, YP and RI. By predicting the yield of the area out side the N-Rich strip we can determine environmental yield potential, YP0. Basically what can the field yield if nothing is added. We multiple YP0 by the RI to get the yield potential with added N, YPN. Then its as simple as N rate = (YPN – YP0 ) x N needed per bushel. So for example if YP0 is 40 bushel RI =2, then YPN is 80 bushel. I need to fertilize the additional 40 bushels of wheat and I can use the 2.0 N per bushel can come up with a top-dress rate of 80 lbs N per acre. We are now incorporating site specific in-season NCrop and NSoil data.
And just a reminder for those of you new to my blog, I have a lot of research documenting that it is not only OK, but often best if we wait on N application in wheat and other crops. Value of In-Season N blog.
Every step we take towards the easy button is often a step towards site specific imprecision due to the use of generalized terms or models. Depending on your goals this very well could be acceptable for your operation, but with nitrogen prices as volatile as they are, should we not be considering pushing the easy button to the side, for now. Let’s add a bit of site-specific data so that we can take advantage of the N the system may be giving us, or the yield we did not expect. Let the N-Rich Strip be that first step.
Relevant Peer Review Publications.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me @ b.arnall@okstate.edu
Banding P as a band-aid for soil acidity, not so cheap now.
Whoi Cho, PhD student Ag Economics advised by Dr. Wade Brorsen
Raedan Sharry, PhD Student Soil Science advised by Dr. Brian Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Extension.
In 2014 I wrote the blog Banding P as a Band-Aid for low-pH soils. Banding phosphate to alleviate soil acidity has been a long practiced approach in the southern Great Plains. The blog that follows is a summary of a recent publication that re-evaluated this practices economic viability.
Many Oklahoma wheat fields are impacted by soil acidity and the associated aluminum (Al) toxicity that comes with the low soil pH. The increased availability of the toxic AL3+ leads to reduced grain and forage yields by impacting the ability of the plant to reach important nutrients and moisture by inhibiting root growth. Aluminum can also tie up phosphorus in the soil, further intensifying the negative effects of soil acidity. More on the causes and implication of soil acidity can be found in factsheet PSS-2239 or here (https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/cause-and-effects-of-soil-acidity.html). The acidification of many of Oklahoma’s fields has left producers with important choices on how to best manage their fields to maximize profit.
Two specific management strategies are widely utilized in Oklahoma to counter the negative impacts of soil acidification: Lime application and banding phosphorus (P) fertilizer with seed. While banding P with seed ties up Al allowing the crop to grow, this effect is only temporary, and application will be required every year. The effects of liming are longer lasting and corrects soil acidity instead of just relieving Al toxicity. Historically banding P has been a popular alternative to liming largely due to the much lower initial cost of application. However, as P fertilizers continue to increase in cost the choice between banding P and liming needed to be reconsidered.
A recent study by Cho et al.,2020 compared the profitability of liming versus banding P in a continuous wheat system considering the impacts that lime cost, wheat price and yield goal has on the comparison. This work compared the net present value (NPV) of lime and banded P. The study considered yield goal level (40 and 60 bu/ac) as well as the price of P2O5 fertilizer and Ag Lime. The price of P2O5 used in this study was $0.43 lb-1 while lime price was dictated by distance from quarry, close to quarry being approximately $43 ton-1 and far being $81 ton-1. For all intents and purposes these lime values are equivalent to total lime cost including application. Wheat prices utilized in the study were $5.10 bu-1 and $7.91 bu-1. It is important to note that baseline yield level was not considered sustainable under banded P management in this analysis. This resulted in a decrease in yield of approximately 3.2 bu ac-1 per year. This is attributable to the expected continued decline in pH when banding P is the management technique of choice.
The analysis in this work showed that lime application is cost prohibitive in the short term (1 year) when compared with banding P regardless of lime cost, yield goal level, and wheat value (within the scope of this study). This same result can be seen over a two-year span when yield is at the lower level (40 bu ac-1). While in the short-term banding P was shown to be a viable alternative to liming, as producers are able to control ground longer lime application becomes the more appealing option, especially when producers can plan for more than 3 years of future production. In fact, under no set of circumstances did banding P provide greater economic return than liming regardless of crop value, yield, or liming cost when more than 3 years of production were considered and only under one scenario did banded P provide a higher NPV in a 3-year planning horizon.
While historically banding P was a profitable alternative to lime application for many wheat producers the situation has likely drastically changed. At the time of writing this blog (09/17/2021) Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) at the Two Rivers Cooperative was priced at $0.78 lb-1. of P2O5. This is a drastic increase in P cost over the last year or so since Cho et al. was published in 2020. With P fertilizer prices remaining high it will be important for producers to continue to consider the value of liming compared to banded P. This is particularly crucial for those producers who can make plans over a longer time frame, especially those more than 3 years.
Addendum: As fertilizer prices have continued to rise a quick analysis utilizing the $0.78 lb-1 of P2O5was completed to consider the higher P fertilizer cost. Under this analysis an estimated decrease in NPV of approximately $38 an acre for P banding occurred. When considering this change in NPV, lime application becomes the more profitable option for alleviation of soil acidity symptoms even in the short term (assuming lime price values are equivalent to the previous analysis). This underlines the fact that it is imperative to consider the impact on profitability of the liming vs. banding P decision in the current economic climate for agricultural inputs.
Link to the Open Access Peer Reviewed publication “Banding of phosphorus as an alternative to lime for wheat in acid soil” https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20071
In-furrow fertilizers for wheat
From Guest Author, Dr. Dorivar Ruiz Diaz, Nutrient Management Specialist, Kansas State University
Wheat is considered a highly responsive crop to band-applied fertilizers, particularly phosphorus (P). Application of P as starter fertilizer can be an effective method for part or all the P needs. Wheat plants typically show a significant increase in fall tillers (Figure 1) and better root development with the use of starter fertilizer (P and N). Winterkill can also be reduced with the use of starter fertilizers, particularly in low P testing soils.
In-furrow fertilizer application
Phosphorus fertilizer application can be done through the drill with the seed. In-furrow fertilizer can be applied, depending on the soil test and recommended application rate, either in addition to or instead of, any pre-plant P applications. The use of dry fertilizer sources with air seeders is a very popular and practical option. However, other P sources (including liquid) are agronomically equivalent and decisions should be based on cost and adaptability for each operation.
When applying fertilizer with the seed, rates should be limited to avoid potential toxicity to the seedling. When placing fertilizer in direct contact with wheat seed, producers should use the guidelines in Table 1.
Table 1. Suggested maximum rates of fertilizer to apply directly with the wheat seed
| Pounds N + K2O (No urea containing fertilizers) | ||
| Row spacing (inches) | Medium-to-fine soil textures | Course textures or dry soils |
| 15 | 16 | 11 |
| 10 | 24 | 17 |
| 6-8 | 30 | 21 |
Air seeders that place the starter fertilizer and seed in a 1- to 2-inch band, rather than a narrow seed slot, provide some margin of safety because the concentration of the fertilizer and seed is lower in these diffuse bands. In this scenario, adding a little extra N fertilizer to the starter is less likely to injure the seed – but it is still a risk.
What about blending dry 18-46-0 (DAP) or 11-52-0 (MAP) directly with the seed in the hopper? Will the N in these products hurt the seed?
The N in these fertilizer products is in the ammonium-N form (NH4+), not the urea-N form, and is much less likely to injure the wheat seed, even though it is in direct seed contact. As for rates, guidelines provided in the table above should be used. If DAP or MAP is mixed with the seed, the mixture can safely be left in the seed hopper overnight without injuring the seed or gumming up the works. However, it is important to keep the wheat mixed with MAP or DAP in a lower relative humidity. A humidity greater than 70% will result in the fertilizer taking up moisture and will cause gumming or caking within the mixture.
How long can you allow this mixture of seed and fertilizer to set together without seeing any negative effects to crop establishment and yield?
The effects of leaving DAP fertilizer left mixed with wheat seed for various amounts of time is shown in Figure 2. Little to no negative effect was observed (up to 12 days in the K-State study).
Although the wheat response to these in-furrow fertilizer products is primarily from the P, the small amount of N that is present in DAP, MAP, or 10-34-0 may also be important in some cases. If no pre-plant N was applied, and the soil has little or no carryover N from the previous crop, the N from these fertilizer products could benefit the wheat.
Dorivar Ruiz Diaz, Nutrient Management Specialist
ruizdiaz@ksu.edu
Chris Weber, former Graduate Research Assistant, Soil Fertility
Down and Dirty with NPK 