Nutrient Management in Today's Agriculture: Challenges & Opportunities
Nutrient Management in Today’s Agriculture: Challenges & Opportunities Greg Binford 302-831-2146 [email protected]
Challenges with Nut Mgmt 1) Rules and Regulations 2) Fertilizer costs 3) Manure management and distribution 4) Predicting nutrient availability from manure sources 5) Evaluating nutrient management practices
University of Delaware
Nitrogen Loads and River Flow to the Bay
RULES and REGULATIONS 1) Not a NEW issue 2) Appears that these will only become more prevalent 3) Chesapeake Bay Status
Nitrogen Loads and River Flow to Chesapeake Bay Millions of Pounds of Nitrogen
Billions of Gallons of Flow
800
100
River Flow
600
75
400
50
Average Load
200
25
0
0 1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogen.aspx. 2008 data are provisional.
Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment:
Phosphorus Loads and River Flow to the Bay Phosphorus Loads and River Flow to Chesapeake Bay Millions of Pounds of Phosphorus
Billions of Gallons of Flow
80
100
60
75
River Flow
40
50
Average Load 20
4
RULES and REGULATIONS 1) Not a NEW issue 2) Appears that these will only become more prevalent 3) Chesapeake Bay Status 4) Agriculture is estimated to contribute about 50% 5) Can we do better? 6) Challenge AND Opportunity
25
0
0 1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_phosphorus.aspx. 2008 data are provisional. Chesapeake BayData Health 5 and Restoration Assessment:
1
FERTILIZER COSTS
Improving Nutrient-Use Efficiency
1) Lower now compared to last year 2) But, significantly higher than a few years ago 3) Long-term trend…. 4) Can’t be sure but increases are expected! 5) As costs go up, efficiency is more important 6) How can Nutrient-use efficiency be improved?
1) Improving efficiency = more nutrient into crop 2) Diagnostic tools: soil testing/tissue testing/RS 3) Better at predicting “ORGANIC” nutrient sources 4) “Hot” Issue recently = Fertilizer Technology
ESN
New Fertilizer Technology 1) Phosphorus = minimize “fixation”/maximize uptake 2) Nitrogen = minimize losses (leaching, denitrification, & volatilization) 3) Important considerations… - Do they work? - Understand mechanisms so can use properly 6) Examples: AVAIL, Nutrisphere-N, ESN, Agrotain, Agrotain Plus, Super U, and others
1) Polymer-Coated UREA fertilizer 2) Slow-release based on polymer breakdown 3) Technology works = N is released slowly 4) Volatilization is NOT a concern 5) When using preplant N…should be considered 6) Sidedress of N is still better BMP than preplant ESN 7) Surface applications release slower than incorporated 8) Should be incorporated with Conventional Tillage 9) No-till applications on corn…apply earlier than normal
ESN preplant vs UAN sidedress UAN sdd
ESN
Urea
190 180 170
161
160
148
150 140 130 120 110 100 90
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
ESNpp
ESN vs Urea BOTH preplant SANDY SOILS
170
151
150 130
120
110 90 70 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nine Sites in Delaware from 2004 through 2008
Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
Nine Sites in Delaware from 2004 through 2009
2
AVAIL
STP = 28
Site SN -- 2008 w/o Avail
w/Avail
250 Early Growth (% of Control)
1) Phosphorus is converted to unavailable forms in soils 2) This conversion is often referred to as “fixation” 3) AVAIL is supposed to slow down this fixation 4) Data to support this “claim” are limited 5) First data showed positive responses in Kansas 6) Few studies since have shown yield increases 7) May be doing something other than slowing P fixation
200 150 100 50 0 5
10
20
30
Mean
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
STP = Low
Site BS -- 2009 w/Avail
w/o Avail Phosphorus Uptake at V6 (lb P2O5/acre)
w/o Avail Early Growth (% of Control)
250 200 150 100 50 0 5
10
20
30
w/Avail
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Mean
5
10
20
30
Mean
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
AVAIL: Early Growth Response
AVAIL: Corn Grain Yield
w/o Avail
w/o Avail
w/ Avail
w/ Avail
250
180 160
Corn Grain Yield (bu/acre)
Early Growth (% of Control)
STP = Low
Site BS -- 2009
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 259
181
274
197
28
32
24
288
Soil Test P Concentration at SEVEN Study Locations in 2007 & 2008 (FIV)
Mean
200 150 100 50 0 259
181
274
197
28
32
24
288
Mean
Soil Test P Concentration at SEVEN Study Locations in 2007 & 2008 (FIV)
3
w/o Avail
AVAIL Studies in Ohio - 2008
STP = Low
Site MW -- 2009
w/o Avail
w/Avail
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
Grain Yield (bu/acre)
230 220 210 200 190
STP = 27 FIV
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
180 5
10
20
30
Mean
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
AVAIL on Corn in VA (2007) Ctrl
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
w/ Avail
Dr. Robert Mullen Ohio 160 State University
240
w/o Avail
3 g 6-24-6
15 g 19-17-0
6-24-6 was applied “in-furrow” & 19-17-0 was applied in “2x2”
Agrotain, Agrotain Plus, & Super U 1) Agrotain is a UREASE inhibitor 2) Agrotain Plus is Agrotain with a nitrification inhibitor 3) Super U is UREA formed with Agrotain Plus 4) These technologies work 5) Use Agrotain when ammonia volatilization is a concern 6) DCD (a NI) keeps N in ammonium form longer 7) Nitrification inhibitor less leaching & denitrification
w/ Avail
240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Rep 4
Rep 5
Rep 6
Rep 7
Mean
Control and 14-46-0 w/ and w/o AVAIL in a Starter Band
1) Claimed to be both a Urease inhibitor and a nitrification inhibitor 2) Several studies would suggest otherwise 3) Product may be doing something other than stopping ammonia volatilization and slowing nitrification 4) Data to support this “claim” are limited 5) First data showed positive responses in Kansas 6) Few studies since have shown yield increases
ESN/Agrotain Ammonia Losses Cumulative Ammonia Loss (%)
NUTRISPHERE-N
60
Urea
50
UAN
40
Urea+NBPT
30
UAN+NBPT
20
UAN+AgroPlus UAN+CaTs
10
ESN
0 0
5
10 15 Days After Treatment
20
Source: Dr. W. Thornberry, Sturgis, KY; Dr. S. Ebelhar, Univ of Illinois Laboratory incubation
4
21-0-0-24
Urea
Urea +AT
Urea +NSN
70
Dr. Rick Norman, Univ. of Arkansas 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
3
7
11
15
Ammonia Volatilization: AT/NSN NITROGEN VOLATILIZED (%)
NITROGEN VOLATILIZED (%)
Ammonia Volatilization: AT/NSN
Bare Soil
30 25 20 15 10
Dr. Elizabeth Guertal Auburn University
5 0 1
35 30 25 20 15
Dr. R. Jay Goos North Dakota State University 4
6
9
12
16
Recovery of N Applied (%)
NITROGEN VOLATILIZED (%)
40
2
5
7
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Urea
Agrotain
NSN
NSN-Ni
350 300 250 200 150
Dr. R. Jay Goos North Dakota State University
100 50 0
Site F31 -- 2009 Urea CORN GRAIN YIELD (bu/ac)
Nitrate or Ammonium (ppm N)
NSN-Am
Super U
Rick Norman, Univ. of Arkansas
Effect on Nitrification (4-week incubation) Urea-Ni
14
NH4 NO3
DAYS SINCE APPLICATION OF UREA FERTILIZER
Urea-Am
10
Effect on Nitrification (14-day incubation)
Urea +NSN
45
0
3
DAYS SINCE APPLICATION OF UREA FERTILIZER
50
5
Urea +NSN
35
Ammonia Volatilization: NSN
10
Urea +AT
40
DAYS SINCE APPLICATION OF UREA FERTILIZER
Urea
Urea
45
250 200 150
Urea w/ Agrotain
Super U
Applied June 1 Four days w/o rain Temp: 74, 88, 81, 65 Rain on day 5 = 1.6”
100 50 0
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
0
50
100
150
200
RATE OF N APPLIED (lb N/acre)
5
Priority on Urease Inhibitor 1) Urea broadcast on soil surface and warm temperature 2) UAN broadcast on soil surface and warm temperature 3) Broadcast on winter wheat…no response in DE 4) Volatilization greatly reduced by dribble band 5) Volatilization eliminated with incorporation
Challenges with Nut Mgmt 1) Rules and Regulations 2) Fertilizer costs 3) Manure management and distribution 4) Predicting nutrient availability from manure sources 5) Evaluating nutrient management practices
Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management is a… Nutrient Management Plan
Adjust the plan
Management Option #1 1) Plan to apply X rate 2) Apply fertilizer 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Evaluate the system
Management Option #2 1) Take a soil sample and get recommended rate 2) Apply rate 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Management Option #3 1) Take a soil sample and get recommended rate 2) Apply rate 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Keep good records 7) Take NEXT soil sample 8) Evaluate Records and how did soil test change 9) Improved confidence in decision on rate/management
6
Bray Soil Test P (ppm)
lb P2O5/acre/year 0 22 45 67
Silt Loam Soil in Arkansas; Broiler Litter Tall Fescue Forage cut 3 to 4 times per year
Iowa Study Silt Loam Soil Corn/Soybean Rotation P Applications stopped six yrs ago on two high rates
Dodd & Mallarino, 2005
27 Years of Corn Soybean Rotation Moore and Edwards, 2007
Management Option #1
NITROGEN
1) Plan to apply X rate 2) Apply fertilizer 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Management Option #2
160 GRAIN YIELD (bu/acre)
1) Plan to apply X rate 2) Use Diagnostic Tools: PSNT/LCM/Tissue Test 3) PSNT/LCM can be used to fine tune rate decision 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Economic Optimum N Rate 140 120 100 80 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
RATE OF N APPLIED (lb N/ac)
7
Stalk Nitrate Test
Adaptive Management is a…
Focus on evaluating current N management
.
Accounts for spatial variability
Nutrient Management Plan
Adjust the plan
Does not require any additional levels of technology
Evaluate the system
Guided Stalk Nitrate Sampling 1) Because of “in-field” variability… 2) Take 4 samples per field 3) Select samples from major soil types 4) Also, select ONE sample from a “stressed” area 5) Find stress areas from aerial image
Adaptive Management
Dribble CORN GRAIN YIELD (bu/ac)
1) FINAL STEP!! 2) Strip Testing 3) Provides that definitive feedback loop 4) Not that difficult with yield monitors 5) Helps quantify BMPs and helps the entire system 6) Farmer groups interested with specific questions
Rain info
Site R -- 2009 Knife
155
153 152
150
147
147 145
145
145 140
151
142
142
138
135 130 125 1
2
3
4
Mean
FOUR REPS OF DRIBBLE vs. KNIFE (X lb N as UAN/ac)
8
Location
Site P -- 2009 Dribble CORN GRAIN YIELD (bu/ac)
165
Knife
160 159 155
155 156
155 151
150 150
148
145 140 1
2
3
No-Till
Turbo Till Irrigated
------- Nitrate-N (ppm) -------
2” rain on evening of application
163 161
160
Year
4
Mean
Kent, DE Sussex Cecil Cecil Cecil Kent, DE Cecil Sussex New Castle Sussex Cecil
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
5,911 8,263 2,177 14,654 1,247 6,660 288 6,775 3,320 7,647 227
6,577 7,076 1,909 20,104 5,740 9,672 711 6,850 3,520 6,740 238
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO YES NO
FOUR REPS OF DRIBBLE vs. KNIFE (X lb N as UAN/ac)
Summary No-Till vs. Turbo Till Strip Trial
No-Till: Turbo Till:
288 ppm 711 ppm
1) Challenges won’t be going away 2) NUE w/ technology…does it work, if so, where? 3) Diagnostic tools allow better decisions 4) One step further…EVALUATION step 5) Dr. Doug Beegle says it best… 6) “Nutrient Management is a PROCESS”
9
Challenges with Nut Mgmt 1) Rules and Regulations 2) Fertilizer costs 3) Manure management and distribution 4) Predicting nutrient availability from manure sources 5) Evaluating nutrient management practices
University of Delaware
Nitrogen Loads and River Flow to the Bay
RULES and REGULATIONS 1) Not a NEW issue 2) Appears that these will only become more prevalent 3) Chesapeake Bay Status
Nitrogen Loads and River Flow to Chesapeake Bay Millions of Pounds of Nitrogen
Billions of Gallons of Flow
800
100
River Flow
600
75
400
50
Average Load
200
25
0
0 1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Data and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogen.aspx. 2008 data are provisional.
Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment:
Phosphorus Loads and River Flow to the Bay Phosphorus Loads and River Flow to Chesapeake Bay Millions of Pounds of Phosphorus
Billions of Gallons of Flow
80
100
60
75
River Flow
40
50
Average Load 20
4
RULES and REGULATIONS 1) Not a NEW issue 2) Appears that these will only become more prevalent 3) Chesapeake Bay Status 4) Agriculture is estimated to contribute about 50% 5) Can we do better? 6) Challenge AND Opportunity
25
0
0 1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
and Methods: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_phosphorus.aspx. 2008 data are provisional. Chesapeake BayData Health 5 and Restoration Assessment:
1
FERTILIZER COSTS
Improving Nutrient-Use Efficiency
1) Lower now compared to last year 2) But, significantly higher than a few years ago 3) Long-term trend…. 4) Can’t be sure but increases are expected! 5) As costs go up, efficiency is more important 6) How can Nutrient-use efficiency be improved?
1) Improving efficiency = more nutrient into crop 2) Diagnostic tools: soil testing/tissue testing/RS 3) Better at predicting “ORGANIC” nutrient sources 4) “Hot” Issue recently = Fertilizer Technology
ESN
New Fertilizer Technology 1) Phosphorus = minimize “fixation”/maximize uptake 2) Nitrogen = minimize losses (leaching, denitrification, & volatilization) 3) Important considerations… - Do they work? - Understand mechanisms so can use properly 6) Examples: AVAIL, Nutrisphere-N, ESN, Agrotain, Agrotain Plus, Super U, and others
1) Polymer-Coated UREA fertilizer 2) Slow-release based on polymer breakdown 3) Technology works = N is released slowly 4) Volatilization is NOT a concern 5) When using preplant N…should be considered 6) Sidedress of N is still better BMP than preplant ESN 7) Surface applications release slower than incorporated 8) Should be incorporated with Conventional Tillage 9) No-till applications on corn…apply earlier than normal
ESN preplant vs UAN sidedress UAN sdd
ESN
Urea
190 180 170
161
160
148
150 140 130 120 110 100 90
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
ESNpp
ESN vs Urea BOTH preplant SANDY SOILS
170
151
150 130
120
110 90 70 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nine Sites in Delaware from 2004 through 2008
Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mean
Nine Sites in Delaware from 2004 through 2009
2
AVAIL
STP = 28
Site SN -- 2008 w/o Avail
w/Avail
250 Early Growth (% of Control)
1) Phosphorus is converted to unavailable forms in soils 2) This conversion is often referred to as “fixation” 3) AVAIL is supposed to slow down this fixation 4) Data to support this “claim” are limited 5) First data showed positive responses in Kansas 6) Few studies since have shown yield increases 7) May be doing something other than slowing P fixation
200 150 100 50 0 5
10
20
30
Mean
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
STP = Low
Site BS -- 2009 w/Avail
w/o Avail Phosphorus Uptake at V6 (lb P2O5/acre)
w/o Avail Early Growth (% of Control)
250 200 150 100 50 0 5
10
20
30
w/Avail
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Mean
5
10
20
30
Mean
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
AVAIL: Early Growth Response
AVAIL: Corn Grain Yield
w/o Avail
w/o Avail
w/ Avail
w/ Avail
250
180 160
Corn Grain Yield (bu/acre)
Early Growth (% of Control)
STP = Low
Site BS -- 2009
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 259
181
274
197
28
32
24
288
Soil Test P Concentration at SEVEN Study Locations in 2007 & 2008 (FIV)
Mean
200 150 100 50 0 259
181
274
197
28
32
24
288
Mean
Soil Test P Concentration at SEVEN Study Locations in 2007 & 2008 (FIV)
3
w/o Avail
AVAIL Studies in Ohio - 2008
STP = Low
Site MW -- 2009
w/o Avail
w/Avail
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
Grain Yield (bu/acre)
230 220 210 200 190
STP = 27 FIV
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
180 5
10
20
30
Mean
Rate of P Applied in Starter Band with 25 lb N (lb P2O5/ac)
AVAIL on Corn in VA (2007) Ctrl
Corn Grain Yield (bu/ac)
w/ Avail
Dr. Robert Mullen Ohio 160 State University
240
w/o Avail
3 g 6-24-6
15 g 19-17-0
6-24-6 was applied “in-furrow” & 19-17-0 was applied in “2x2”
Agrotain, Agrotain Plus, & Super U 1) Agrotain is a UREASE inhibitor 2) Agrotain Plus is Agrotain with a nitrification inhibitor 3) Super U is UREA formed with Agrotain Plus 4) These technologies work 5) Use Agrotain when ammonia volatilization is a concern 6) DCD (a NI) keeps N in ammonium form longer 7) Nitrification inhibitor less leaching & denitrification
w/ Avail
240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Rep 4
Rep 5
Rep 6
Rep 7
Mean
Control and 14-46-0 w/ and w/o AVAIL in a Starter Band
1) Claimed to be both a Urease inhibitor and a nitrification inhibitor 2) Several studies would suggest otherwise 3) Product may be doing something other than stopping ammonia volatilization and slowing nitrification 4) Data to support this “claim” are limited 5) First data showed positive responses in Kansas 6) Few studies since have shown yield increases
ESN/Agrotain Ammonia Losses Cumulative Ammonia Loss (%)
NUTRISPHERE-N
60
Urea
50
UAN
40
Urea+NBPT
30
UAN+NBPT
20
UAN+AgroPlus UAN+CaTs
10
ESN
0 0
5
10 15 Days After Treatment
20
Source: Dr. W. Thornberry, Sturgis, KY; Dr. S. Ebelhar, Univ of Illinois Laboratory incubation
4
21-0-0-24
Urea
Urea +AT
Urea +NSN
70
Dr. Rick Norman, Univ. of Arkansas 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
3
7
11
15
Ammonia Volatilization: AT/NSN NITROGEN VOLATILIZED (%)
NITROGEN VOLATILIZED (%)
Ammonia Volatilization: AT/NSN
Bare Soil
30 25 20 15 10
Dr. Elizabeth Guertal Auburn University
5 0 1
35 30 25 20 15
Dr. R. Jay Goos North Dakota State University 4
6
9
12
16
Recovery of N Applied (%)
NITROGEN VOLATILIZED (%)
40
2
5
7
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Urea
Agrotain
NSN
NSN-Ni
350 300 250 200 150
Dr. R. Jay Goos North Dakota State University
100 50 0
Site F31 -- 2009 Urea CORN GRAIN YIELD (bu/ac)
Nitrate or Ammonium (ppm N)
NSN-Am
Super U
Rick Norman, Univ. of Arkansas
Effect on Nitrification (4-week incubation) Urea-Ni
14
NH4 NO3
DAYS SINCE APPLICATION OF UREA FERTILIZER
Urea-Am
10
Effect on Nitrification (14-day incubation)
Urea +NSN
45
0
3
DAYS SINCE APPLICATION OF UREA FERTILIZER
50
5
Urea +NSN
35
Ammonia Volatilization: NSN
10
Urea +AT
40
DAYS SINCE APPLICATION OF UREA FERTILIZER
Urea
Urea
45
250 200 150
Urea w/ Agrotain
Super U
Applied June 1 Four days w/o rain Temp: 74, 88, 81, 65 Rain on day 5 = 1.6”
100 50 0
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
0
50
100
150
200
RATE OF N APPLIED (lb N/acre)
5
Priority on Urease Inhibitor 1) Urea broadcast on soil surface and warm temperature 2) UAN broadcast on soil surface and warm temperature 3) Broadcast on winter wheat…no response in DE 4) Volatilization greatly reduced by dribble band 5) Volatilization eliminated with incorporation
Challenges with Nut Mgmt 1) Rules and Regulations 2) Fertilizer costs 3) Manure management and distribution 4) Predicting nutrient availability from manure sources 5) Evaluating nutrient management practices
Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management is a… Nutrient Management Plan
Adjust the plan
Management Option #1 1) Plan to apply X rate 2) Apply fertilizer 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Evaluate the system
Management Option #2 1) Take a soil sample and get recommended rate 2) Apply rate 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Management Option #3 1) Take a soil sample and get recommended rate 2) Apply rate 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Keep good records 7) Take NEXT soil sample 8) Evaluate Records and how did soil test change 9) Improved confidence in decision on rate/management
6
Bray Soil Test P (ppm)
lb P2O5/acre/year 0 22 45 67
Silt Loam Soil in Arkansas; Broiler Litter Tall Fescue Forage cut 3 to 4 times per year
Iowa Study Silt Loam Soil Corn/Soybean Rotation P Applications stopped six yrs ago on two high rates
Dodd & Mallarino, 2005
27 Years of Corn Soybean Rotation Moore and Edwards, 2007
Management Option #1
NITROGEN
1) Plan to apply X rate 2) Apply fertilizer 3) Crop looks good 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Management Option #2
160 GRAIN YIELD (bu/acre)
1) Plan to apply X rate 2) Use Diagnostic Tools: PSNT/LCM/Tissue Test 3) PSNT/LCM can be used to fine tune rate decision 4) Crop yields good 5) Worked good 6) Next year…same cycle!
Economic Optimum N Rate 140 120 100 80 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
RATE OF N APPLIED (lb N/ac)
7
Stalk Nitrate Test
Adaptive Management is a…
Focus on evaluating current N management
.
Accounts for spatial variability
Nutrient Management Plan
Adjust the plan
Does not require any additional levels of technology
Evaluate the system
Guided Stalk Nitrate Sampling 1) Because of “in-field” variability… 2) Take 4 samples per field 3) Select samples from major soil types 4) Also, select ONE sample from a “stressed” area 5) Find stress areas from aerial image
Adaptive Management
Dribble CORN GRAIN YIELD (bu/ac)
1) FINAL STEP!! 2) Strip Testing 3) Provides that definitive feedback loop 4) Not that difficult with yield monitors 5) Helps quantify BMPs and helps the entire system 6) Farmer groups interested with specific questions
Rain info
Site R -- 2009 Knife
155
153 152
150
147
147 145
145
145 140
151
142
142
138
135 130 125 1
2
3
4
Mean
FOUR REPS OF DRIBBLE vs. KNIFE (X lb N as UAN/ac)
8
Location
Site P -- 2009 Dribble CORN GRAIN YIELD (bu/ac)
165
Knife
160 159 155
155 156
155 151
150 150
148
145 140 1
2
3
No-Till
Turbo Till Irrigated
------- Nitrate-N (ppm) -------
2” rain on evening of application
163 161
160
Year
4
Mean
Kent, DE Sussex Cecil Cecil Cecil Kent, DE Cecil Sussex New Castle Sussex Cecil
2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008
5,911 8,263 2,177 14,654 1,247 6,660 288 6,775 3,320 7,647 227
6,577 7,076 1,909 20,104 5,740 9,672 711 6,850 3,520 6,740 238
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO YES NO YES NO
FOUR REPS OF DRIBBLE vs. KNIFE (X lb N as UAN/ac)
Summary No-Till vs. Turbo Till Strip Trial
No-Till: Turbo Till:
288 ppm 711 ppm
1) Challenges won’t be going away 2) NUE w/ technology…does it work, if so, where? 3) Diagnostic tools allow better decisions 4) One step further…EVALUATION step 5) Dr. Doug Beegle says it best… 6) “Nutrient Management is a PROCESS”
9
