Home » Posts tagged 'topdress'
Tag Archives: topdress
Sulfur Fertilizer in Wheat: Is It a Have-To?
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Extension Specialist.
Sulfur has become a much bigger part of the fertility conversation over the last several years, and for good reason. We are producing higher-yielding crops, removing more nutrients from our fields, and receiving less sulfur from atmospheric deposition than we did several decades ago. But that does not mean sulfur fertilizer has become a “have-to” application for every wheat field.
Ms. Kelby Linn’s research provides a good example of why soil testing still matters. Across the environments in this study, sulfur fertilizer did not increase wheat grain yield. The soil was able to supply enough sulfur to meet the yield demand of the crop. When fertilizer margins are tight, that is important. Applying a nutrient that is already present in sufficient amounts is an expense without a yield return. At the same time, these results should not be interpreted to mean that sulfur fertilizer is unnecessary. Sulfur management is ultimately a mass-balance issue. Every bushel we harvest removes nutrients from the field. As yields increase, nutrient removal increases. If we continually remove more sulfur than the soil and other sources can supply, at some point we have to replace it.
That is why I am more concerned about sulfur in intensive, high-yield production systems, particularly on sandier soils and soils with lower organic matter. These soils generally have less capacity to supply sulfur, while a high-yielding crop is removing more of it. That combination increases the likelihood of sulfur becoming limiting. This is where soil testing becomes a valuable management tool. Rather than treating sulfur as something wheat either “always needs” or “never needs,” we should identify the fields where soil supply is unlikely to meet crop demand and put our fertilizer dollars there.
It is also important not to carry the wheat results presented here across every cropping system. Our ongoing work in corn has shown more response to sulfur fertilizer than we have observed in wheat. That fits the larger nutrient-removal discussion, particularly as we push corn yields higher. We will share two years of data after this year’s corn harvest.
Kelby’s research also raises another interesting question. If the soil already contains enough sulfur to maximize wheat grain yield, does additional sulfur do anything? His work suggests that it can. The response may not be additional bushels, but changes in how nitrogen is used and, ultimately, the quality and functionality of the grain.
Understanding Sulfur’s Role Beyond Grain Yield
Kelby Linn and Brian Arnall
Why Nitrogen and Sulfur Must Work Together
Nitrogen (N) has long been recognized as the most important nutrient for winter wheat production. It is a primary driver of vegetative growth, grain yield, and grain protein concentration, making N management the focus of most wheat fertility programs across Oklahoma. Sulfur (S) plays a different but complementary role. Nitrogen supplies the building blocks needed to produce proteins, while S is needed to form sulfur-containing amino acids such as cysteine and methionine. These amino acids contribute to the bonds that strengthen gluten proteins and influence dough strength, elasticity, and overall baking performance. When S becomes limiting, wheat may continue to take up N but may be less efficient at incorporating that N into functional storage proteins. Therefore, the relationship between N and S may become increasingly important as N rates and yield potential increase. The literature suggest that relationship can be wrong in both directions were N is in excess and S is deficient can cause yield loss but also where S is in excess and N is deficient we can experience loss.
Understanding the System
To better understand how S behaves under different N environments, field trials were conducted across north-central Oklahoma and south-central Kansas during the 2023–2025 growing seasons. The objective was to determine whether S responses differed when N was limiting compared with a high-N production environment.
Two N fertilizer rates were evaluated using ammonium sulfate (AMS) and urea:
- 60 lb N/ac, representing a sub-optimal or N-limited environment
- 140 lb N/ac, representing a high-N environment where S could have greater potential to become limiting
Each N rate was combined with five S rates supplied as AMS: 0, 5, 10, 20, and 30 lb S/ac.
Sulfur was applied before jointing, between Feekes 4 and 6, with the top-dresss N application, when wheat nutrient uptake is increasing and the crop is transitioning toward reproductive development. This allowed us to evaluate the influence of S on grain production, N utilization, and grain quality under both N-limited and high-N conditions.
Soil testing was an important part of interpreting the results. Across the locations, sulfate-S was present in the soil profile before fertilizer application. Soil test S varied among sites and depths, reinforcing that the amount of S already available to the crop can differ considerably among fields.
Table 1. Average composite soil sample results of pH, organic matter (OM), nitrate, and SO4 for all locations of the S interaction study.
First, What Happened to Yield?
Nitrogen remained the dominant factor controlling grain yield. Across environments, average wheat yield increased from 46 bu/ac with the lower N rate to 56 bu/ac with the higher N rate. Sulfur, however, did not significantly increase grain yield. Soil tests indicated that the sites generally contained measurable sulfate-S, which correctly predicted the lack of a yield response. If grain yield had been our only measurement, the story could have ended there. But the addition of S affected several characteristics related to how the grain performed during milling and dough development, particularly under the high-N treatment.
Why Wheat Quality Matters
Most Oklahoma wheat producers market wheat based primarily on grain yield and protein concentration. Once wheat moves farther through the grain chain, however, millers and commercial bakeries evaluate additional characteristics that determine how the flour performs. Hard red winter wheat is valued for its ability to produce strong bread flour. That ability depends not only on the amount of protein in the grain but also on the structure and functionality of those proteins. Nitrogen applications generally increases grain protein concentration, while S can influence the composition of those proteins. Adequate S promotes the formation of S-containing proteins involved in strong gluten networks. As a result, two wheat samples with similar protein concentrations can potentially behave differently during milling and baking.
Looking Beyond Grain Protein
Several measurements were used to evaluate wheat and flour quality. Grain protein represents the total protein concentration of the kernel and remains an important factor in wheat marketing. Flour protein measures the protein concentration after the bran and other components have been removed during milling. Other measurements tell us more about milling and baking performance. Milling yield describes how much usable flour can be produced from the grain, while flour ash is an indicator of the amount of mineral material remaining in the flour and can help evaluate milling efficiency. Falling number provides information about alpha-amylase activity and potential preharvest sprouting. Gluten index is particularly useful for evaluating gluten strength. A higher gluten index generally indicates stronger gluten that can better maintain dough structure during mixing and fermentation.
What Happened When We Made Dough?
One of the unique aspects of this study was evaluating flour with DoughLAB analysis. Rather than measuring only grain or flour composition, DoughLAB measures how flour behaves during mixing. Development time measures how long the dough must be mixed to reach optimum consistency. Dough stability measures how long the dough maintains that consistency before beginning to break down. Mixing tolerance index, or MTI, measures how rapidly the dough weakens after optimum development. Water absorption measures the amount of water required to produce dough at a standard consistency.
Of these measurements, dough stability provided one of the more interesting S responses. Under the high-N treatment, average dough stability increased from approximately 6 minutes without S to nearly 15 minutes at the highest S rate. Greater dough stability indicates that the gluten network was able to withstand mixing for a longer period before breaking down. For commercial baking, this can be important because stronger, more stable dough generally provides greater tolerance during mixing and more consistent performance during processing.
What Did We Learn?
Across these environments, N remained the primary factor controlling grain yield. Increasing N increased average yield, while adding S did not provide a significant yield response. However, the absence of a yield response did not mean S had no effect on the wheat. Under high-N conditions, S improved several measurements associated with grain and dough functionality, including gluten strength, dough development, and dough stability.
These results help separate two questions that are sometimes treated as the same question: Does the crop need S to produce more grain, and does S influence what happens inside the grain?
At the locations included in this study, the answer to the first question was no. The soils supplied enough S that additional fertilizer did not increase yield. The second question was more complicated. Sulfur influenced characteristics associated with protein functionality and end-use quality, particularly when N supply was high. That does not mean S should be applied routinely to improve wheat quality. For producers, the first fertilizer decision should still be based on whether the crop is likely to become S deficient. Soil testing, soil texture, organic matter, yield potential, and production history all provide information that can help make that decision. The larger lesson from this work is that S has a role in wheat beyond simply producing more bushels. Understanding that role helps us make better fertilizer decisions while continuing to put fertilizer where it is most likely to provide a return.
Data drawn from The Influence of Sulfur Under Nitrogen Extremes in Winter Wheat.
Linn, Kelby DeeAnn. Oklahoma State University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2026. 32668685.
Cheap Nitrogen is not always the best Nitrogen, Timing matters
Brian Arnall: Precision Nutrient Management Extension Specialist, Oklahoma State University
In 2020, we published a summary of four OSU trial series comparing pre-plant nitrogen (N) to in-season N in grain-only winter wheat. https://osunpk.com/2020/09/10/value-of-in-season-application-for-grain-only-wheat-production/ Since then, three of those trial series have made it through peer review, and additional analyses have added considerably more data to the story. From both historic data from Dr. Raun’s program and new work. All together, these studies now represent more than 90 Oklahoma site-years across a wide range of environments, N rates, and application timings. So, after several more years of research, has the conclusion changed?
Does waiting to apply nitrogen cost wheat yield?
Across these studies, moving N from pre-plant to a properly timed in-season application generally maintained or increased grain yield. How often in-season N increased yield varied among datasets. Souza et al. found that winter wheat could recover from early N stress without sacrificing yield over a surprisingly wide application window. In other studies, in-season N was statistically similar to pre-plant N. The important point is that delaying N did not automatically mean giving up yield.
The Regional N study started by Dr. Raun 2in 2009, adds an important environmental piece to the story. Split N out yielded pre-plant N in approximately 29% of the 52 site-years, specifically those classified as highly responsive to N. These years tend to be wetter environments with greater yield potential. In the remaining 71%, split and pre-plant N produced statistically similar yields. Across all 52 site-years, splitting N never resulted in a significant yield loss compared with pre-plant N.
When a yield advantage with in-season N occurred, it could be meaningful. One study found a single in-season application produced approximately 8% greater yield than a full-rate pre-plant application. Sharry’s Gallagher/Green Hammer study found a single Feekes 4 (spring green up) application averaging approximately 11% greater yield than a single pre-plant application across two varieties and four site-years. The Regional N analysis found an approximately 5.4 bu/ac, or 14%, advantage for split N over pre-plant N in highly N-responsive environments, while there was no difference in the remaining environments. The message isn’t that in-season N always produces more wheat. It doesn’t. Properly timed in-season N generally maintained yield, and about 58% of the time increased it.
Protein Tells an Even More Consistent Story
Protein responded more consistently to N timing than yield. Later N increased grain protein across nearly every dataset. In the Regional N study, split N increased protein by 0.8 percentage points above the pre-plant compared with a 1.1-point increase from all N applied in-season. That advantage occurred across every environmental response category. In the end yield response to delayed N depends heavily on environment. The protein response is considerably more consistent.
If In-Season N Works, Is There a Reason to Split It?
Once the decision is made to move N away from a full pre-plant application, another question follows: should some N still go out pre-plant and the remainder in-season, or can the entire rate wait until the growing season? Two datasets tested that question directly, and neither found a consistent yield advantage to splitting N over a single, well-timed in-season application.
Sharry’s study found that a single green up application out-yielded both two-way and three-way splits by approximately 4.4 to 9.4 bu/ac at the site-years where treatments differed. At no site-year did a split application out-yield the single in-season timing. Abiola (2025) reached essentially the same conclusion. A single in-season application matched or exceeded a 50/50 pre-plant/in-season split across the timings evaluated. There was, however, an important exception. As the single in-season application was pushed into late March and April, having some N already applied reduced the potential downside.
Splitting N appears to be more about risk management than yield management.
Putting some N out early provides insurance against weather, field conditions, equipment problems, or other factors that prevent the planned in-season application from being made on time. If a single in-season application can be made at the proper time, however, these data provide little evidence that splitting N improves yield. So, in the end you reduce the “risk” but double application cost.
Timing Still Matters
None of this should be interpreted as saying N can be applied whenever it is convenient. The window for applying N to grain-only winter wheat is wider than many growers assume, but it isn’t unlimited. As application moves later, the opportunity for unfavorable weather to interfere with N availability becomes increasingly important.
The Regional N study provides a good example. For post top-dress applied N rainfall alone explained 27% of the site-to-site variation in how much the crop responded to N. The environments where split N increased yield over pre-plant N were generally the wetter, higher-yielding environments.
Waiting on N is a management strategy. Waiting too long is not.
Moving N in-season allows the rate decision to be made when considerably more is known about stand, growing conditions, and yield potential. But that flexibility only has value if the application is made while the crop can still effectively use the N. The data shows that the most risk adverse timing falls in the January to mid-March time frame.
What About Fertilizer Price?
Agronomy is only part of the decision. Anhydrous ammonia can provide a substantial cost-per-pound-of-N advantage over fertilizer sources typically used for in-season applications. When that price gap becomes large, the in-season strategy needs to create enough additional value through yield, protein, improved N-rate decisions, or reduced N loss to pay for the more expensive source.
The break-even calculation is straightforward: Additional N cost per acre ÷ wheat price = additional bushels needed to break even. At a 100 lb N/ac rate, every $0.10/lb difference in N price represents $10/ac in fertilizer cost.
For example, if the in-season N source costs $0.30/lb N more, that is a $30/ac disadvantage before the crop is planted. At $4.00 wheat, in-season N needs to produce 7.5 additional bu/ac to cover that difference. At $5.00 wheat, it needs 6 bu/ac, and at $6.00 wheat, it needs 5 bu/ac.
The range becomes fairly large as the difference in N price changes. At a 100 lb N/ac rate and wheat prices between $4 and $6/bu, a $0.20/lb N-price difference requires roughly 3 to 5 additional bu/ac, while a $0.50/lb difference requires roughly 8 to 13 additional bu/ac.
That doesn’t make either strategy automatically more profitable. In environments where yield is the same, the cheaper N source has the economic advantage. Where in-season N increases yield or protein, the economics can move in the other direction. There is also another economic benefit to waiting that is harder to put into a simple table: by waiting, the producer can adjust the N rate to the yield potential that is there rather than the yield potential hoped for before planting.
So fertilizer price adds another question to the N-timing decision: How much is the flexibility of waiting worth this year?
After more than 90 Oklahoma site-years, there is little evidence that grain-only winter wheat inherently benefits from having the entire N requirement available before planting. A properly timed in-season application generally maintains yield and can increase yield under responsive conditions. The opportunity to increase grain protein is even more consistent. Waiting also allows the final N decision to be made when the producer knows considerably more about the crop, weather, and realistic yield potential.
Splitting N does not appear to provide an additional yield benefit over a single, properly timed in-season application. Its primary value is insurance against missing that application window. But fertilizer price matters. When anhydrous or another pre-plant source provides N substantially cheaper than the available in-season source, those savings have real value and should be weighed against the potential benefits of waiting. There isn’t one N-timing strategy that wins every year. The goal isn’t simply to maximize yield or minimize fertilizer cost. It is to choose the N source, rate, and timing combination that provides the best economic return for the conditions in front of you.
These conclusions apply to grain-only winter wheat. Dual-purpose wheat requires sufficient fall growth for forage production and has a different early-season N requirement.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach out.
Brian Arnall
b.arnall@okstate.edu
Sources
Souza, J.L.B., Antonangelo, J.A., Silva, A.O., Reed, V., and Arnall, B. 2022. Recovery of Grain Yield and Protein with Fertilizer Application Post Nitrogen Stress in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agronomy 12:2024.
Abiola, S.O., Souza, J.L.B., Sharry, R., Derrick, J.R., Maatougui, M., and Arnall, D.B. 2025. Split nitrogen applications provide no benefit over a single well timed application in rainfed winter wheat. Frontiers in Plant Science 16:1698494.
Ballagh, B., Ballagh, A., Bushong, J., and Arnall, D.B. The Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer Placement and Timing on Winter Wheat Grain Yield and Protein Concentration.
Sharry, R. 2025. Response to nitrogen timing of varying winter wheat genotypes Dissertation, https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14446/344867
Regional N study. 52 Oklahoma site-years, 2009–2023, Okstate Soil Fertility data unpublished.
The Mechanics of Soil Fertility: Use of Sugar in Field Crops
Jolee Derrick, Precision Nutrient Management Ph. D. Student
Grace Williams, Soil Microbiology Ph. D. Candidate
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
Recently, there has been increased interest in adding sugar to spray tank mixes, whether for post-emergence weed control or foliar nutrient applications. While there is limited work on impact of sugar inclusion in herbicide applications, some papers have posed potential enhancement (Devine and Hall, 1990). But since this is coming from a soil science group, we will only focus on soil impact. Following up the last blog, unlike humic substances, which represent more complex and relatively stable carbon forms, sugar is a highly labile carbon source. This rapid utilization of simple carbon sources is well documented to stimulate microbial activity and growth (Kuzyakov and Blagodatskaya, 2015). The general idea of utilizing sugar applications is that sugar has the capacity to improve spray performance, stimulate biological activity, increase organic matter mineralization, and ultimately result in improved yields.
Sugar additions can influence soil processes differently depending on system conditions. In systems with higher residual nitrogen and organic matter, responses may differ from those observed in Oklahoma production environments, where soils are typically lower in organic matter and microbial activity can occur for much of the year. Understanding how sugar functions in these systems requires a basic discussion of carbon dynamics. Sugar itself is almost entirely carbon and is readily consumed by microbes. It’s a simple molecule, which allows it to dissolve easily in water and be quickly utilized in the soil system. Crop residues, like wheat straw, are also carbon-rich but much more complex. They contain cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin which are long carbon chains that take time to break down because microbes need specialized enzymes to access them.
For the sake of simplicity, we can group carbon into two key pools: labile carbon and particulate organic matter (POM). Labile carbon includes easily decomposed materials, which include the previously mentioned simple sugars that microbes can metabolize rapidly. These pools differ in turnover time and microbial accessibility, with labile carbon driving short-term microbial responses (Cotrufo et al. 2013). POM breaks down more slowly and serves as a longer-term nitrogen source through residue breakdown.
Soil microorganisms require both carbon and nitrogen to grow and maintain biomass, typically at a ratio of approximately 24 parts carbon to 1 part nitrogen. When readily available carbon is abundant, but nitrogen is limited, microbes increase their nitrogen demand and begin scavenging nitrogen from the surrounding soil. This process, better known as nitrogen immobilization, temporarily reduces nitrogen availability to crops. Additions of readily available carbon sources have consistently been shown to increase microbial nitrogen immobilization in soil systems (Recous et al. 1990).
In systems where sufficient nitrogen is present, microbial populations can expand rapidly. Fast-growing microbial species may dominate, continuing to immobilize nitrogen within their biomass. Eventually, when nitrogen becomes limiting, microbial populations decline to levels the system can support. This boom-and-bust cycle can disrupt nitrogen availability during critical stages of crop growth. These rapid shifts in microbial population and activity following carbon inputs are commonly observed in soil systems receiving easily decomposable substrates (Blagodatskaya and Kuzyakov, 2008).
This dynamic becomes especially relevant when considering residue management practices common in Oklahoma. Under no-till or limited-tillage systems, the crop residues have wide carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratios, creating conditions where nitrogen immobilization can occur during the growing season.
Table 1 provides approximate C:N ratios for several crops commonly grown in Oklahoma. When additional carbon is introduced into these systems without accompanying nitrogen, the likelihood of microbial immobilization increases. While immobilization is not bad, it does create a question mark as Oklahoma’s variable climate means the following release of nutrients will be unpredictable.
Table 1. Table depicting the range of C:N ratios for residues of commonly utilized crops in Oklahoma. Ratios were obtained from Brady, N. C., & Weil, R. R. (2017). The Nature and Properties of Soils (15th ed.)
Now consider conventional tillage systems. In Oklahoma, no-till systems typically contain 2 to 3 percent organic matter, which is relatively high given our climate and extended periods of microbial activity. Conventional tillage systems often fall between 0.75 and 2.25 percent organic matter. Because soil organic matter is approximately 58 percent carbon, this represents a substantial difference in the soil carbon pool.
Tillage can temporarily enhance microbial access to both previously mentioned carbon pools. When tillage exposes previously protected carbon, microbial activity increases rapidly. This initial flush can temporarily increase nitrogen mineralization as organic nitrogen is converted to plant-available forms. However, this phase is short-lived. As microbial populations expand, nitrogen demand increases, leading to immobilization and reduced nitrogen availability.
Hypothetically, increased microbial growth and activity would rapidly mineralize organic matter, trigger a surge in NO₃⁻, deplete soil organic matter, and as resources become limiting and the environment can no longer sustain elevated microbial populations, this boom would be followed by a population crash. This relationship is ultimately driven by the soil C:N ratio, which introduces an interesting additional complexity of residue. Different residues bring very different carbon-to-nitrogen balances into the system, and microbes respond accordingly. High carbon residues give microbes plenty of energy but very little nitrogen, so they pull N out of the soil to meet their needs. Residues with lower C:N ratios (soybean, alfalfa, etc.) do opposite, releasing nitrogen as they break down. Now the real question becomes where the critical point sits, and when does management push the system from the threshold of immobilization and mineralization.
These hypotheses form the foundation for new research currently underway through the Precision Nutrient Management Program. Initial proof-of-concept work has already been completed, providing a necessary steppingstone to address these questions.
Figure 1. Graph depicting the different concentrations of nitrate leached corresponding to applied treatments in the proof-of-concept work
The preliminary work (Figure 1) evaluated different sugar sources applied alongside a high-nitrogen product to assess the extent of nitrogen immobilization. Although these studies were conducted using potting soils, clear trends were apparent. Treatments containing sugar consistently showed greater nitrogen immobilization compared to treatments without sugar. This response is consistent with studies showing that additions of simple carbon substrates stimulate microbial growth and increase nitrogen immobilization (Dendooven et al. 2006). Building on this work, an active field-based research project is underway to evaluate how sugar additions influence nitrogen availability and microbial dynamics under real-world Oklahoma production conditions.
From an agronomic standpoint, sugar functions primarily as a readily available carbon source that stimulates microbial growth. In nitrogen-limited systems, this response increases the likelihood that nitrogen will be incorporated into microbial biomass rather than remaining immediately available for crop uptake.
Finally, we conclude with a conceptual consideration. If increased OM mineralization leads to greater plant biomass, this process may partially offset losses of OM. Greater biomass production could return more residues to the soil, contributing to the OM pool in the upper soil profile. Therefore, the system may compensate for OM mineralization through the rebuilding of organic matter via plant inputs. However, the stabilization of this carbon depends on microbial processing and physical protection within the soil matrix (Cotrufo et al. 2015)
However, while the underlying logic is sound, this concept has not been extensively studied within Oklahoma cropping systems. This blog does not address the impact of sugar applications on residue breakdown, and the potential impact of such. Future research through the Precision Nutrient Management Program will further investigate the mineralization process to better understand carbon dynamics within these systems.
Take Home:
- Oklahoma production systems generally have lower residual N and high carbon residues, creating conditions conducive to N immobilization
- Adding sugar increases microbial growth, creating population booms that will momentarily increase mineralization, but then immediately immobilize residual nitrogen.
- Tillage can amplify the negative effects of sugar by exposing more carbon and reducing soil organic matter
- Proof-of-concept work shows sugar triggered a net nitrogen immobilization in a carbon heavy environment
- Proof-of-concept work also suggests that when additional nitrogen is present, sugar additions may shift the system toward net mineralization rather than immobilization.
Work Cited:
Blagodatskaya, E., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2008). Mechanisms of real and apparent priming effects. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 45, 115–131.
Brady, N. C., and R. R. Weil. “The Nature and Properties of Soils, 15th Edn (eBook).” (2017).
Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., & Paul, E. (2013). The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework. Global Change Biology, 19, 988–995.
Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix, M. L., Wall, D. H., & Parton, W. J. (2015). Formation of soil organic matter via biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nature Geoscience, 8(10), 776–779.
Dendooven, L., Verhulst, N., Luna-Guido, M., & Ceballos-Ramírez, J. M. (2006). Dynamics of inorganic nitrogen in nitrate- and glucose-amended alkaline–saline soil. Plant and Soil, 283(1–2), 321–333.
Devine, M. D., & Hall, L. M. (1990). Implications of sucrose transport mechanisms for the translocation of herbicides. Weed Science, 38(3), 299–304.
Kuzyakov, Y., & Blagodatskaya, E. (2015). Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: Concept & review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 83, 184–199.
Recous, S., Mary, B., & Faurie, G. (1990). Microbial immobilization of ammonium and nitrate in cultivated soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 22, 913–922.
Boosting Wheat Grain Protein: Smart Spray Strategies for Better Grain Quality
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
Samson Abiola, PNM Ph.D. Student.
Wheat Protein and Technology challenge
For wheat growers, achieving both high yields and good protein content is a constant challenge. Wheat contributes about 20% of the world’s calories, making it a vital crop for global nutrition. Every season, we face the question of how to boost grain protein concentration (GPC) without sacrificing the yield.
Traditional approaches often involve applying more nitrogen (N) early in the season. While this can help, it is often wasteful, environmentally problematic, and does not always translate to higher protein levels at harvest. The effectiveness of N applications depends not just on timing but also on the spray technology used, including the N source, nozzle type, and droplet size. While protein premiums are never guaranteed, we wanted to develop recommendations prior to the need.
The Research Approach: Timing and Technology
Our research team conducted a comprehensive three-year study (2019-2022) across three Oklahoma locations (Perkins, Lake Carl Blackwell, and Chickasha) to investigate how different combinations of N sources, nozzle types, and droplet sizes affect protein when applied during flowering. We considered two N sources (urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) and aqueous urea [Aq. Urea]). We also evaluated three nozzle types: Standard flat fan (FF) nozzles with a traditional 110° spray angle, 3D nozzles with three-dimensional spray patterns that enhance canopy penetration, Twin (TW) nozzles with dual forward and rear facing sprays (30° forward and backward)
Finally, we tested both fine droplets (below 141 microns) and coarse droplets (≥141 microns). All applications were made at flowering i.e., when you start seeing yellow anthers sticking out of the wheat heads. Both UAN and Aq. urea were applied at a 20 gpa application rate with a 1:1 dilution with water delivering approximately 30 lbs. of N per acre.
What We Found: More Protein Without Hurting Yield
The big news? Spraying N at flowering boosted wheat protein by 12% without sacrificing yield. This held true across fields yielding anywhere from 30 to 86 bushels per acre. Why doesn’t it hurt yield? By flowering time, your wheat has already “decided” how many heads and kernels it will produce. The N you spray at this stage goes straight to building protein in those existing kernels.
One important caution: Mother Nature still calls the shots, so keep an eye on the forecast before planning your application. If the weather is hot and dry, this is not a good idea. First, those environments typically result in higher protein anyways. But low humidity will significantly increase the likelihood of burn.
Lake Carl Blackwell Findings: UAN Takes the Lead
At our Lake Carl Blackwell site, we saw our highest protein levels reaching up to 16.3% in some plots. In 2020-21, UAN clearly beat Aq. urea (14.7% vs. 14.0% protein). Both were much better than not applying any N at flowering (13.1%) (Figure 1A). Also, the 3D nozzle gave us the highest protein (14.7%), outperforming the control but performing similarly to FF (14.0%) and TW nozzles (14.2% (Figure 1B). The next year (2021-22) showed us something interesting, the combination of N source and droplet size really matters. UAN with fine droplets hit 14.6% protein, similar to UAN with coarse droplets (14.4%) and Aq. urea with coarse droplets (14.3%), but Aq. urea with fine droplets fell behind at just 13.8% (Figure 1C).
Chickasha Results: Matching Your N to the Right Droplet Size
At Chickasha, protein ranged from 10.1% to 13.8% across the two years we studied. In 2021-22, UAN beat Aq. urea (12.7% vs. 12.2%), and both beat the control (11.8%) (Figure 2A). Also, the 3D nozzle (12.8%) outperformed both FF and TW nozzles (both 12.2%) (Figure 2B).
In 2020-21, we found that the combination of N source, nozzle type, and droplet size all worked together to affect protein. The winning combination was UAN with 3D nozzle and fine droplets (13.23% protein), which performed similarly to Aq. urea with TW nozzle and coarse droplets (13.18%) (Figure 2C). The least performer was Aq. urea with TW nozzles and fine droplets (12.20%) among the treatments. This shows how weather and growing conditions can change which factors matter most from year to year
Perkins Results: Getting Every Detail Right
At our Perkins site, we saw protein levels ranging from 10% to 13.1%. Here, the combination of all three factors (N source, nozzle type, and droplet size) made a huge difference. The best setup was UAN with 3D nozzle and coarse droplets (12.2% protein). The worst was Aq. urea with TW nozzle and fine droplets (10.5%) (Figure 3). That’s a 15% difference that could mean the difference between premium and feed-grade wheat!
UAN consistently outperformed Aq. Urea across all setups. For example, UAN with 3D nozzle and coarse droplets produced 10% higher protein than the same setup with Aq. Urea.
Equipment and Application Recommendations
Over the three years UAN consistently outperformed perform Aq. urea, showing there is no need for a special formulation and that commercially available UAN is all we really need as a source. While no nozzle type significantly stood out across all sites the 3-D nozzle did show up a couple times as being statistically better. So the important message would be that while the high tech nozzles could provide some value the traditional flat fan performed quite well. While some differences were seen in droplet size, the lack of consistency leads us to say focus on good coverage with limited drift.
Take-Home Messages
- Foliar N at flowering boosted wheat protein by 12% without affecting yield multiple growing seasons and locations. This increase was from 0.5 to nearly 2.0 % protein.
- Nitrogen source matters – UAN consistently outperformed Aq. Urea.
- Your spray technology mattered but not lot – and 3D nozzles generally gave the best results. The good ole flat fans nozzles still did quite will.
- Match droplet size to your setup – generally fine for UAN and coarse for Aq. Urea.
- This targeted approach enhances grain quality without sacrificing yield, potentially improving grain prices and profitability while using N more efficiently.
- Mother Nature still calls the shots, so keep an eye on the forecast before planning your application. If the weather is hot and dry, this is not a good idea. First, those environments typically result in higher protein anyways. But low humidity will significantly increase the likelihood of burn.
This blog was written based upon the data published in the manuscript “Optimizing Spray Technology and Nitrogen Sources for Wheat Grain Protein Enhancement” which is available for free reading and downloading at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/8/812
Any questions or comments feel free to contact me. b.arnall@okstate.edu
Nitrogen and Sulfur in Wheat
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
Samson Abiola, PNM Ph.D. Student.
Nitrogen timing in wheat production is not a new topic on this blog, in-fact its the majority. But not often do we dive into the application of sulfur. And as it is top-dressing season I thought it would be a great opportunity to look at summary of a project I have been running since the fall of 2017 which the team has call the Protein Progression Study. The objective was to evaluate the impact of N and S application timings on winter wheat grain yield and protein. With a goal of looking at the ratio of the N split along with the addition of S and late season N and S, in such a way that we could determine BMP for maximizing grain yield and protein.
My work in the past has shown two things consistently, that spring N is better on the average and S responses have been limited to deep sandy soils in wet years. Way back when (2013) on farm response strips showed high residual N at depth and no response to S. https://osunpk.com/2013/06/28/response-to-npks-strips-across-oklahoma/. But there has been a lot of grain grown since that time expectations are that we should/are seeing an increase in S response. In fact Kansas State is seeing more S response, especially in the well drained soils in east half of the state.
Some KSU Sulfur works.
https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/news/stories/2022/04/video-sulfur-deficiency-in-wheat.html
https://eupdate.agronomy.ksu.edu/article/sulfur-deficiency-in-wheat-364-1
Click to access sulphur-in-kansas-plant-soil-and-fertilizer-considerations_MF2264.pdf
So the Protein Progression Project was established in 2017 and where ever we had space we would drop in the study. So in the end across six seasons we had 13 trials spread over five locations. Site-years varied by location: Chickasha (2018-2022), Lake Carl Blackwell (2018-2023), Ballagh (2020), Perkins (2021), and Caldwell (2021).
First lets just dive into the the N application were we looked at 100% pre vs 50-50 split and 25-75 split (Table 2.) Based upon the wealth of previous work https://osunpk.com/2022/08/26/impact-of-nitrogen-timing-2021-22-version/, its not much of a surprise that split application out preformed preplant and that having the majority applied in-season tended to better grain yields and protein values.
This next table is were things get to be un-expected. While the data below is presented by location, we did run each site year by itself. In no one site year did S statistically, or numerically increase yield. As you can see in Table 2 below, the only statistical response was a negative yield response to S. And you can not ignore the trend that numerically, adding S had consistently lower yields. Even more surprising was the same trend was seen in Protein.
One aspect of Protein Progression trials were that while 0-6″ soil test S tended to be low. We would often find pretty high levels of S when we sampled deeper, especially when there was a clay increase with depth. Sulfur tends to be held by the clay in our subsoil. We are also looking at better understanding the relationship between N and S. In fact a review article published in 2010 discussed that the N and S ratio can negative influence crop production when either one of the elements becomes un-balanced. For example we are seeing more often in corn that when N is over applied we can experience yield loss, unless we apply S. Meaning at 200 lbs of N we make 275 BPA, at 300 N lbs we make 250, but 300 N plus 20 S we can make 275 again. Part of the rationale is that excessive N limits S mineralization. On the flip side if S is applied while N is deficient and yield decrease could be experienced. Maybe that is what we are seeing in this date. Either way, this data is why the Precision Nutrient Management program is spending a fair amount of efforts in understanding the N x S relationship in wheat (which we are looking at milling quality also) and corn.
A quick dive into increasing protein with late N applications. At three of the five location GPC was significantly increased with Late N. In most cases the anthesis (flowering) application was the highest with exception of Caldwell. We will have another blog coming out in a month that digs into anthesis applied N at a much deeper level, looking at source, nozzle and droplet sizes.
Looking at this study in a vacuum we can say that it probably best to split apply your N and that in central and northern Ok the addition of S in rainfed wheat doesn’t offer great ROI. If I look at the whole picture of all my work and experience I would offer this. For grain only wheat, the majority if not all N should be applied in-season sometime between green up and two weeks after hollow stem. I have had positive yield responses to S applied top-dress, but it has always been deep sandy soils and wet seasons. I have not have much is any response to S in heavier soil, especially if there is a clay increase in the two feet of profile. So my general S recommendation is 10 lbs in sandy soils and if you show low soil test S in heavier ground and you are trying to push grain yields, then you could consider the addition of S as a potential insurance. That said, I haven’t seen much proof of it.
Take Homes
* Split application of nitrogen resulted in higher grain yields and protein concentrations when compared to 100% preplant.
* Putting on 75% of the total N in-season tended to result in higher grain yields and protein concentrations when compared to 50-50 split.
* Adding 10 lbs of S topdress did not result in any increase in grain yield or protein.
A big Thanks to the collaborators providing on-farm locations for this project. Ballagh Family Farms, Turek Family Farms and Tyler Knight.
Citation. Jamal, A.,*, Y. Moon, M. Abdin. 2010 Review article. Sulphur -a general overview and interaction with nitrogen. AJCS 4(7):523-529 (2010). ISSN:1835-2707.
Any questions or comments feel free to contact me. b.arnall@okstate.edu
A comparison of four nitrogen sources in No-till Wheat.
Jolee Derrick, Precision Nutrient Management Masters Student.
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist.
Nitrogen (N) fertilizer’s ability to be utilized by a production system is reliant upon the surrounding environment. The state of Oklahoma’s diverse climate presents unique challenges for producers aiming to apply fertilizers effectively and mitigate the adverse effects of unfavorable conditions on nitrogen fertilizers. To lessen the effect that unfavorable environments can have on N fertilizers, chemical additions have been introduced to base fertilizers to give the best possible chance at an impact. With that in mind, a study was conducted to investigate the impact of N sources and application timings on winter wheat grain yield and protein, aiming to identify both the agronomic effects of these sources and how variations in their timing may influence the crop. Included below is a figure of where and when the trials were conducted.
In each of the trials, four N sources (Urea, SuperU, UAN, and UAN + Anvol) were analyzed across a range of timings. The sources were categorized on two criteria: application type, distinguishing between dry and liquid sources, and the presence of additives versus non-additives. The two N sources were Urea and UAN. The other products in this study were SuperU and Anvol. SuperU is a N product that has Dicyandiamide (DCD) and N- (n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) incorporated into a Urea base. Anvol is an additive product which contains NBPT and Duromide and can be incorporated with dry or liquid N sources.
For additional clarification, N- (n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide is a urease inhibitor which prevents the conversion of urea to ammonia. Duromide is a molecule which is intended to slow the breakdown of NBPT. DCD is a nitrification inhibitor that slows the conversion of ammonium to nitrate.
Urea is a stable molecule which in the presence of moisture is quickly converted to stable ammonium (NH4), however it can be converted to ammonia gas (NH3) by the enzyme urease beforehand. Additionally, when urea is left on the soil surface and not incorporated via tillage or ½ inch of a precipitation event, the NH4 that was created from urea can be converted back to NH3 and gasses off. So, the use of urease inhibitors is implemented to allow more time for incorporation of the urea into the soil.
Ammonium in the soil is quickly converted to nitrate (NO3) by soil microbes when soil temperature is above 50F°. When N is in the NO3 form it is more susceptible to loss through leaching or denitrification. Therefore, nitrification inhibitors are applied to prevent the conversion of NH4 to NO3.
All treatments were applied at the same rate of 60 lbs of N ac-1, which is well below yield goal rate. A lower N rate was chosen to allow the efficacy of the products to express themselves more clearly, rather than a higher rate that may limit the ability to determine differences between product and rate applied. Furthermore, dry N sources were broadcasted by hand across the plots while liquid sources were applied by backpacking utilizing a handheld boom with streamer nozzles. Application timing dates were analyzed by identifying the growing degree days (GDD) associated with each timing which were correlated with the Feekes physiological growth chart displayed in Figure 3. Over the span of the study, N has been applied over six stages of growth. The range of application dates stems from the fact that it is difficult to get across all the ground exactly when you need to.
Over four years this study was replicated 11 times. Of those 11 site years, three did not show a response to N, so they were removed from further analysis. The graph above shows the average yield of each respective source (across all locations and timings). The data shows there is a statistical difference between SuperU and Urea vs. UAN, but no statistical difference between UAN treated Anvol and any other source. The data indicates that on average, a dry source resulted in a higher yield than when a liquid source was applied. This makes sense considering that in many cases, wheat was planted in heavy residue during cropping seasons that experienced prolonged drought conditions. Therefore, it is thought that a liquid source can get tied up in the residue. This was first reported in a previous blog posting, Its dry and nitrogen cost a lot, what now?, and years later, the same trends in new data indicate the same conclusion.
If we look at all timings and site years averaging together there is no statistical difference between a raw N source and its treated counterpart. This result is not surprising as we would expect that not all environments were conducive to loss pathways that the products prevented. Basically, we would not expect a return on investment in every single site year, and therefore you do not see broad sweeping recommendations. There was a 2-bushel difference between UAN and UAN Anvol. As this was a numerical difference, not a statistical one, I would say that while the yield advantage was not substantial there may be economic environments that would suggest general use.
While the evaluation of the four sources across all timings and locations showed some interesting results, this work was performed to see if there was a timing of application which would have a higher probability of a safened N returning better yields. As you look at the chart above it is good to remember the traditional trend for precipitation in Oklahoma, where we tend to start going dry in November and stay dry through mid-January. Rain fall probability and frequency starts to increase around mid-February, but moisture isn’t consistent until March. This project was performed during some of the dryest winters we have seen in Oklahoma. Also, just a note, since the graph above combines all the sites that have differing application dates the absolute yields are a bit deceiving. For example, the Nov and Feb timings include the locations with our highest yields 80+ bpa per acre, while January and February include our lowest. So, the way this data is represented we should not draw conclusions about best time for N app. For that go read the blogs Impact Nitrogen timing 2021-2022 Version and Is there still time for Nitrogen??
Figure 6a and b. A: The mesonet rainfall totals for Oct -Dec for the Lake Carl Blackwell research station for 2020-2023 A: The mesonet rainfall totals for Jan – April for the Lake Carl Blackwell research station for 2021-2024. The black line on both graphs is the 10 year average.
Now about the source by time. While it’s not always statistical you can see that the dry sources tend to outperform the liquid sources at most timings. Also, while there is never a statistical difference in the raw product and safened, there are trends. SuperU tended to have higher yields than urea when applied in Nov and Dec. It could be hypothesized that the addition of a nitrification inhibitor may have added value, however the UAN + Anvol in November also showed a positive response that would point to the value being derived from urease inhibition. As we move into the period of more consistent rainfall the differences between products start declining, which also makes sense.
The following figures illustrate rainfall events following N application, with the application dates indicated by arrows. Figure 7 corresponds to our trial conducted in 2020-2021, which revealed no statistical differences among the N sources for any timing. However you can see that for the first timing (orange bars) which received 0.7″ of rain two days after application that the yields are uniform than the grey bars with both safened products are numerically greater than the raw product, just makes since as a 0.1″ precipitation event happened 6 days application application and it wasn’t until day 9 that a good incorporating rainfall occurred.
Figure 8 has data the same location one year later, during which we observed statistically significant differences among the dry and liquid N sources. The environmental conditions during 2022 were drier, impacting the incorporation of N applications. The lack incorporating rainfall likely led to tie-up of the UAN on/in the residue, limiting access to plant available N.
It is essential to highlight the environmental conditions encountered throughout this project. From 2020 to 2023, moderate to extreme drought conditions were prevalent. During this period, the influence of a La Niña led to reduced moisture availability. For the first time in an extended period, the 2023-2024 wheat year began under a strong El Niño, which typically results in increased moisture accumulation compared to its La Niña counterpart. Currently, there are indications that a return to a La Niña system may occur by the end of the year, raising the expectation of a potential reversion to drought conditions. Consequently, this research may provide producers with options to consider regarding sources of N application in their production systems.
We plan to update this blog with a deeper analysis of the results seen at each location as soon as possible. But for now, we wanted to share the early look.
At this point the reason for the liquid yield gap is speculation. It could be increased loss via ammonia volatilization or it could be immobilization of the N by microbes. The next step of this process is to understand 1) is the UAN tied up in the residue via immobilization via microbes or is it lost to volatilization. 2) If tied up, what is the time frame between application and immobilization.
Take Home:
- It was observed that during low moisture conditions, dry N sources had significantly better results than liquid counterparts in no-till winter wheat production.
- On average, additive products had no significant impact on grain yield versus base fertilizers, however, when evaluated by location, differences could be found. Responses usually correlated with post-application weather conditions.
- When adequate precipitation was received shortly after application, N sources did not show differences.
Any questions or comments feel free to contact me. b.arnall@okstate.edu
Grain Sorghum, 2023 edition
As I sit in my office writing this I am seeing the chances for Stillwater to get a good rain today slowly dwindle away. Last night we had a 75% chance of 0.56. Its now 3pm we have received 0.01 and have a 60% chance of getting an additional 0.10. And as this is how 2023 has gone, but we are still better off than so many west and north of us.
No some of the zeroed out wheat ground and winter fallow ground has seen its first moisture in 100+ days. Planters and drilling are rolling and or ready to roll. So I wanted to throw out a few thoughts and re-share an older blog.
In August of last year I was talking about how the extended drought was impacting organic matter and nitrogen cycling “Nitrogen cycle hiccups and a lot of drying“. Wish I could say things have changed since then but we all now otherwise. While we have moisture to plant and germ our H2O fuel tank is far from full. Its going to take significant rainfall to rebuild the soil profile, not to mention the ponds. And I can not forget how last year we had great rains in May and were going pineapple by the end of July. I had N response studies all over the state in sorghum, at every trial nitrogen was not a limiting factor.
By this point if you know me or have every read anything I have written in the past you should know what is coming. My recommendation for pre-plant N is 0.0 lbs. Go ahead and put a starter down where you have low P or pH that’s out of range, and Fe and/or Zn in the calcareous soils where needed, but that’s it. We are continually adding to the research data base that says sorghum responds exceptionally well to in-season nitrogen applications in some cases nearly all the way to boot stage. I believe we are close to determining/explaining why the crop does so well but not ready to share that work just yet.
I just do not have the trust in the what rains may come to spend money on a fertilization pass that has been proven to be less valuable. Get the seed in the ground and crop up, put out some N-Rich strips. Let the weather play out for a month or so and see 1) Do I have soil moisture to get me through harvest or am I living day by day on a hope and a prayer? 2) is my N-Rich strip showing?
For Question 1) if your living day to day is further investment in the crop warranted? If you have soil moisture and rain in the forecast, its time to rock and roll. For question 2) which I hope you take my advice on doing. If the N-Rich is showing up 30 days into the you can use some rough yield goal estimations and apply 1 lb N per bushel or go get access to a GreenSeeker sensor (available through OSU extension offices) and use OSU’s online calculator SBNRC. If the strips not showing up then you need to consider that a month into the crops growth the soil has supplied 100% of the crops N need. Depending on if you want to push yield or save N adjust your rec accordingly. I would say reducing planned N rate by 40-50 lbs would a legitimate option. There are more and more agronomist utilizing N strips in wheat and sorghum so you could check around.
Final thoughts.
The more I do research on N timing and N management the more I am finding that there are some great benefits to limiting early N availability to the crop. To the point were I am finding and increasing value of an early season N stress on crop performance and grain yield.
Now for rehashed research. Much like wheat, sorghum can and probably should wait for N.
Can Grain Sorghum Wait on Nitrogen? One more year of data.
Original Posting 4.7.2022
Michaela Smith, Ph.D. candidate under advisement of B. Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
The impressive ability of sorghum to recover from significant N stress with late applied nitrogen was originally reported in the blog “Can grain sorghum wait on nitrogen”. This projected was replicated again in 2021 and these are the results. During the 2021 growing season, frequency of rainfall events and amounts were similar to the 2020 growing season. Figure 1. shows the application dates and rainfall events.
Statistically there was no significant difference in grain yield from the pre-plant (0) and any application up to the 56 day application. This data matches up quite well the yield results from 2020.
Looking and the current soil moisture conditions (Figure 3.) and fertilizer price I think this data supports the recommendation to get the seed in the ground and see how the situation plays out. If there are decent rains at and shortly after planting then there is time to apply nitrogen with little risk of yield loss. If fact the weather during late May and early June provide some of the best chances to getting the fertilizer rained in (Figure 4) . If the weather doesn’t cooperate and provide us the much needed rains, then by waiting to apply we are not left with a lot of Expensive nitrogen setting out in the field of a failed crop.
Final Thoughts Heading into the 2021 Sorghum Planting Season.
– Make sure you have a soil sample, knowing P and K will be critical.
– No need to front load N fertilizer, especially if soil moisture is short.
– Utilize in-furrow P if soil pH and or soil test P is low.
– If you skip pre-plant N APPLY N-RICH STRIPS!!!!
– If you apply pre-plant N consider applying 50% of the expected N or less.
– If you are applying any level of pre-plant N, Create Zero-N Strips.
For more information or questions contact
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu 405.744.1722
Special thanks to EDC Ag Products Co LLC for suppling NH4NO3 used in the delayed N project.
Original Post March 22, 2022.
Data for this post available in thesis Impact of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum
Smith, Michaela Lynn (2021-05). Available at https://shareok.org/discover
Grain sorghum producers in Oklahoma are challenged greatly by their environment and sporadic rainfall patterns, which diminish as the season progresses. These uncontrollable variables influence timing of nitrogen (N) application and nitrogen use efficiency. Using rainfall events as an incorporation method forces producers to apply before the event regardless of its intensity or delay application until field conditions are acceptable while anxiously waiting for another rainfall event. When deciding to delay N application it’s important to know the effects on physiological development and grain yield.
Trial structure and breakdown
This study was conducted over the 2020 growing season consisting four locations, including one double cropping system following wheat. Ten in-season applications were made using ammonium nitrate (AN) as the N source at a rate of 90 lbs. ac. Using AN as the N source reduced the risk of nitrogen loss through the process of volatilization as the goal of the research was to test the plant not the fertilizer. A pre-plant treatment served as the standard check, while in-season applications were initiated at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) and applications made sequentially at 7-day intervals. A non-fertilized check was included to the study to confirm locations were responsive to N fertilized applications Hybrid, plant date, and seeding rate can be found in Table 1.
Physiological Response to Application Timing
Two of the four locations demonstrated an effect to physiological development and maturity with the delay of nitrogen application. A delay in heading by a one to two-week period was observed at Perkins and Lahoma for applications made after May 21st (Table 2.). This delay in heading contributed to similar delay in maturity and potential harvest date. At Perkins decreased plant height was observed in the pre-plant plot and was associated with the onset of late season nitrogen deficiency (Figure 2). While this response was unexpected, the impact of nitrogen deficiency experienced early in the crop growth on the root and shoot growth has been well documented in many species. As a plant experiences nitrogen limitations growth changes from above ground to the below ground parts (roots) in an attempt to alleviate nitrogen stress. This increase in root growth could contribute to a more efficient uptake of nitrogen and decrease loss. In contrast to Figure 2, pre-plant application is shorter than compared to later season applications, this could be a result of inadequate N uptake thus leading to N loss by leaching, whereas later applications had increased root growth for efficient N interception and uptake.
Yield Response to Application Timing
Response of N was observed at all locations (Figure 3), while the delay of nitrogen varied in its effects across all locations. Grain yield from each N application was compared back to the pre-plant application to evaluate the effects of timing. All four locations responded positively to N fertilizer. At both LCB and Lahoma grain yield was maintained with applications made as late as 42 to 63 DAP respectively before any negative trend in grain yield was observed. Perkins was the only locations to have a statistically significant increase in grain yield due to delayed N applications. At this site, which is a sandy loam, waiting until 42 DAP resulted in a 15 bushel increase over the pre-plant plot. Now Alva which was double crop showed that rainfall is key. At this site, none of the in-season treatments made it up the level of the pre-plant. The reason for this will be discussed further below.
Influence of Rainfall
The loss in grain yield at Perkins in the pre-plant application could likely be reflective of nitrogen loss due to leaching. Pre-plant applications have been well documented in the aspect loss as a result of crop requirement and early physiological development. Long term mesonet rainfall data depicts a decline in the probability of rainfall with the progression of the growing season across all locations. In early season the probability of 0.5 inches of rainfall ranges from 8 to 10% respectively for LCB, Lahoma, and Perkins, and dramatically decline to percentages at low as 5% in mid-July during grain filling period. For Alva rainfall probability is substantially lower as its season was initiated during the drier months, which depicted a probability of 6% for 0.5 inches of rainfall, and 4.5% for 1 inch for early season rainfall crucial for pre-plant incorporation and crop establishment. These probabilities drop considerably compared to regular season as the months progress onward, mid to late August probability for 0.5 inches ranges from 0.8 to 11.5%, while for a 1 inch is 0 to 6.9%. Past weather data provided by the mesonet illustrates how later in the season rainfall and its amount is variable, suggesting that in a double crop scenario delayed application is not recommended while it is in regular season crop due to the increased chance of rainfall probability.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impacts of delayed nitrogen application in grain sorghum. In order to develop an accurate conclusion additional site years are required, although current data could suggest delaying nitrogen application for full season grain sorghum is possible without a detrimental loss in grain yield. This means producers have time to evaluate the crop and market to determine if more inputs are needed and economical, while allowing implementation of technologies such as the N-Rich Strip and SBNRC.
If you have any questions for comments please reach out.
Brian Arnall
b.arnall@okstate.edu
405.744.1722
Acknowledgement of EDC Ag Products Co LLC for support of this project.
Impact of Nitrogen timing 2021-22 Version
Raedan Sharry, Ph.D. Student Precision Nutrient Management
As wheat planting rapidly approaches for some and gets underway for others, it is without a doubt worth considering the current moisture conditions, the near-term outlook, and how that might influence N management decisions. There is plenty of information located in this blog and many other resources that show the benefits of delayed N management in crops. This is particularly true when considering an extremely long growing season for winter wheat in the southern plains. Given our current soil moisture situation yield expectations given the current soil moisture may be limited until replenishing precipitation occurs. This has many questioning their N management plan.
Often when talking about the past N timing results How Late Can You Wait there are comments about the risk of waiting and the crop needing N to get going. Most of the work in the past looked at a single application of N applied at different times and didn’t address split application. But the data from a couple of trials located at Perkins and Perry Oklahoma in the 21-22 season is reinforcing what the past data suggest. These trials consisted of 2 varieties with a 0 N check and 9 combinations of N timings to at 90lbs rate and 3 timings at 140 lbs. of N. Ammonium nitrate (34-0-0) was the N source used in this study to limit the impact of urea volatilization. For both locations we have pre-plant soil test results for the 0-6 and 6-12 inch depths. Both locations at about 30 lbs of total N and OM of 2.0% in the top 6 inches.
The varietal component of this study doesn’t matter in this context so we will leave them unnamed as both cultivars responded very similar to nitrogen timing and rate within each location. The first thing to highlight is both trials were sown in mid-October. October 19th and October 21st to be exact. Both locations received timely rainfall to start the season with approximately 1.5 inches of precipitation falling in half-inch increments between October 25th and November 10th. Top-dress applications in January and March were made on 1/10/22 and 3/24/22 respectively. After the early rainfall events the season was largely dry up until the precipitation in mid-march. So pre-plant fertilizer was incorporated in a fairly timely manner however the January application was applied almost a month before meaningful precipitation occurred. The March application missed the only productive rainfall event until the end of April however this occurred solely due to the application trigger being based on reaching the jointing stage.
If we take what is stated above into consideration it would be hard to imagine that January applied N would provide a boost over pre-plant. The data says different. At both locations pre-plant N cost us bushels compared to treatments containing fertilizer only in January. Even splitting the application did not produce the same result as treatments that only apply N in-season. At the Perry location at the 90 lb. total rate there was no yield difference between any split applications and the 0-90-0 application making the January application more cost effective. While there were no split application treatments made at the 140 lb. rate the 0-140-0 treatment (140 lbs. applied in January) maximized yield. I also think it is important to note that if the March applications would have been applied prior to the rain event immediately preceding them the March application likely would have AT LEAST been competitive with the other treatments given previous research focusing on delayed N applications. Statistically the 90-0-0 and 0-0-90 were in the same grouping for both cultivars.
At the Perkins location the results were not much difference as far as impact of timing. In-fact except for Var 1 at Perkins 0-140-0 was statistically better than all other treatments. Also expect for Var 1 at Perry the 0-90-0 and 140-0-0 were statistically the same. In all cases 90-0-0 yielded less than 0-90-0 but it was not statistical for all comparisons.
The timing component is important as it shows that we are perfectly capable of applying N in-season and being successful. In-fact this work, and other work is starting to show that contrary to past beliefs, split application is not providing any benefit over a single well-timed application. The source of N of this project needs to be consider as the January top-dress application sat on the surface for almost a month before finally receiving just under two-tenths of an inch of precipitation. We will have another blog coming out soon looking at the impact of N sources urea versus UAN when applied in Fall, January, or March very soon.
With these results in mind and current moisture conditions it is only reasonable to consider delayed nitrogen application, not only to increase nitrogen use efficiency and possibly increase yields as well as a virtually guaranteed increase in grain protein, but also as a way to hedge your bet against fertilizer application cost. This work and all the past work support that grain only wheat does not benefit from the application of pre-plant N. By applying N fertilizer now there is a chance that it may become a sunk cost with a poor performing or even failed crop. And if it does start raining, well that pre-plant N will be right there ready to be leached. Being efficient is important in the tight years, and by delaying N application until you are sure the crop requires it may save you a pretty penny or more.
Questions or comments please feel free to reach out.
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu
Acknowledgements: EDC Ag Products Co LLC for support of this project.
Oklahoma Wheat Commission and Oklahoma Fertilizer Checkoff for Funding.
In-season N application methods for Sorghum
Raedan Sharry, Ph.D. candidate under advisement of B. Arnall
Brian Arnall, Precision Nutrient Management Specialist
The data about to be reported is from the study we have fondly named “Burn Baby Burn”, you will see why soon enough.
Grain Sorghum production continues to be an important component of many growers crop rotations in the Great Plains. However, for many growers who focus primarily on small grains production, equipment restraints may impose limits on in season nitrogen (N) management. When producers are able to delay the application until in-season it helps to ensure that N is available to the crop at the time of increased uptake during the reproductive stages of the crops life. Producers often have access to equipment and technologies that may be used to take advantage of improved N application timing, but may worry about the negative effects that nitrogen can have if the fertilizer is inadvertently applied to plant material. An experiment was initiated in Central Oklahoma to evaluate the yield response of grain sorghum to in-season nitrogen application methods.
Trials were placed at Lake Carl Blackwell near Stillwater, Perkins and Chickasha Oklahoma and included 9 in-season fertilization methods and a 0 nitrogen control. Treatments are listed in Table 1 below.
In total 120 lbs of N was applied to all treatments receiving in-season applications. 60 lbs was applied at planting to all treatments including the “Zero N Control”. The remaining 60 lbs. of N was applied according to application method in-season. The urea was applied by hand and the liquid treatments a push cart with adjustable boom height (Figure 1) was used to apply the UAN. Applications were made mid day at V8 growth stage. The temperature at the time of all applications was about 90 F and humidity below 75%. Nozzle position for 30″ and 60″ was set for between rows.
At two of the three locations (Stillwater and Perkins) the addition of 60 lbs. of N in-season increased yield above the control treatment. At the Stillwater (Lake Carl Blackwell) location there were no statistical differences (α=0.05) between in-season fertilized treatments except the T-Bar 20” treatment (Figure 2). The Perkins location (Figure 3) provided a similar result in which again there was no statistical difference between fertilized treatments, excluding the T-Bar 20” treatment.
The Chickasha location differed in that additional in-season nitrogen did not improve yield (Figure 4). While we want a response to applied N, in the case it allows use to solely evaluate the impact of burn associated with N application. The T-bar 20” treatment statistically negatively impacted grain yield and the FlatFan-20″ did at α=0.10, which means we are only 90% confident the yield lose was due to treatment. This response has been consistent across all three locations, on average decreasing yield approximately 21 bu/ac relative to the individual site grain yield average.
Even though it was mentioned for Chickasha, it is also important to note that while it was not statistically significant (α=0.05) the FF- 20” treatment (Flat Fan nozzles above canopy on 20” spacing) trended towards decreasing yields at all 3 locations and is likely detrimental to crop performance. At all locations substantial damage to leaf material was observed, similar to that pictured in Figure 5 below. Several of the treatments damaged leaf material on the plant through burn injury, but most were not negatively impactful on grain yield in the 2021 growing season. Grain sorghum yield did not benefit from moving the application point below the canopy using drop attachments, nor did adjusting nozzle spacing from 30 to 60”. Source was not a significant factor impacting grain yield regardless of it application method.
The observations from this study show that many of the in-season nitrogen application methods that are available to growers will not negatively impact yield. This however does not apply to tools such as the T-Bar. Similar tools that concentrate large amounts of N to leaf material are also likely to produce similar results. It is important to note that the T-bar was used on 20” spacings and not tested otherwise. Moving the spacing of the T-bar may lead to different results.
Growers who are looking to move N applications in their grain sorghum crop to in-season to capture the benefits associated will likely be able to with equipment that is already available to them. While leaf damage may be observed under sub-optimal application methods, damage is unlikely to contribute to significant yield loss. However, growers should keep in mind that environmental conditions may have a significant impact on the results seen from these types of application as growers should always look to limit stress to the plant when possible.
We of course will be putting out a second year of this study and will share the results when we can.
For more information or questions contact
Brian Arnall b.arnall@okstate.edu 405.744.1722
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.
Down and Dirty with NPK 