slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
N, P and K for 2014: $300 Rent, $4 Corn and USEPA

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 41

N, P and K for 2014: $300 Rent, $4 Corn and USEPA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 59 Views
  • Uploaded on

N, P and K for 2014: $300 Rent, $4 Corn and USEPA. John Grove and Edwin Ritchey Plant and Soil Sciences. Supply Nitrogen; adequate, plentiful natural gas, more capacity being built (net export?) Phosphate; adequate, industry consolidation (Mosaic, South America, supply control)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' N, P and K for 2014: $300 Rent, $4 Corn and USEPA' - ownah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

N, P and K for 2014:$300 Rent, $4 Corn and USEPA

John Grove and Edwin Ritchey

Plant and Soil Sciences

2014 nutrient management context
Supply

Nitrogen; adequate, plentiful natural gas, more capacity being built (net export?)

Phosphate; adequate, industry consolidation (Mosaic, South America, supply control)

Potash; always adequate, but Russian cartel broken (for now), Urakali versus Belaruskali (lost mines, CEO-house arrest), 75 start-ups “on hold”, including BHP’s $14 billion Jansen/Canada mine, Belaruskali just announced $300/ton fob

2014 Nutrient Management Context

Various industry sources; Wall Street J.

2014 nutrient management context1
Demand

Driven by nutrient removal

Driven by price?

2014 Nutrient Management Context
grain crop nutrient removal
Grain Crop Nutrient Removal

Murdock and Ritchey, 2013, AGR-1

2014 nutrient management context2
Demand

Driven by nutrient removal

Driven by price?

Nutrient removal

A tale of two years

2014 Nutrient Management Context
nutrient removal corn 2012
Nutrient Removal – Corn – 2012

Initial STP = 50, STK = 250

AGR-1 recommends 30 lb P2O5 & 30 lb K20

2012 Ky corn yield - 68 bu/A

Removal: 48, 27, and 24 lb N, P2O5, K2O/A

Soil test again or assume a 1 lb/A change in soil test with each 5 lb addition-removal/A

End of 2012: estimated STP = 51, STK=251

AGR-1 recommends 30 lb P2O5 & 30 lb K20 for 2013

Ritchey, 2013

nutrient removal corn 2013
Nutrient Removal – Corn – 2013

Initial STP = 50, STK = 250

AGR-1 recommends 30 lb P2O5 & 30 lb K20

2013 Ky corn yield - 173 bu/A

Removal: 121, 69, and 61 lb N, P2O5, K2O/A

Soil test again or assume a 1 lb/A change in soil test with each 5 lb addition-removal/A

End of 2013: estimated STP = 42, STK=244

AGR-1 recommends 40 lb P2O5 & 30 lb K20 for 2014

Ritchey, 2013

nutrient removal irrigated corn
Nutrient Removal – Irrigated Corn

Initial STP = 50, STK = 250

AGR-1 recommends 30 lb P2O5 & 30 lb K20

Irrigated corn yield - 250 bu/A

Removal: 175, 100, and 88 lb N, P2O5, K2O/A

Soil test again or assume a 1 lb/A change in soil test with each 5 lb addition-removal/A

End of year: estimated STP = 36, STK=238

AGR-1 recommends 60 lb P2O5 & 40 lb K20 for next year

Ritchey, 2013

soil sample to verify
Soil Sample to Verify!?

Year 1 = 1990

Year 23 = 2012

Sikora, 2013

slide12
The lb P2O5/A required to change soil test P by 1 lb/A – as related to the initial soil test P level – after an 8 week lab incubation.

Thom and Dollarhide, 1987

slide16

Buying has been off.

Waiting for further price

Decline.

DTN, 2013

2014 nutrient management context4
Price – should be influenced by supply, demand and fertilizer/crop price ratio, but the industry knows you had high removal.

Nitrogen

the N industry monitors corn prices and pricing; seek to set price of N/lb at about 1/10 the price of corn/bu

delivery timing and storage capacity can influence N pricing, especially anhydrous

Near future: expect a bit more supply driven pricing, especially N and P (K ??)

2014 Nutrient Management Context
2014 nutrient recommendations
Follow recommendations

For N: AGR-1 gives a range in recommended rates for the situation. Move to the high end of the range when the fertilizer N/grain price ratio is favorable (low).

For lime, P and K: soil test based approach is best

For S and the micronutrients (Zn, B, Mn): know your likely need. Verify with soil test and plant tissue analysis.

2014 Nutrient Recommendations
recommendation philosophies
The “Right” Recommendation

Competing philosophies of recommendation:

SLAN, Maintenance, Soil Nutrient Balance

UK: Sufficient Level of Available Nutrients (SLAN)

Crop response based/fertilize for the crop;

Buildup (at low test levels);

Maintenance (at medium-high test levels);

None (at high-very high test levels).

Recommendation Philosophies
slide22

Wrong Recommendation = Real Loss

Real Money = Get a Second Opinion?

Murdock, 1992, AGR-151

future nutrient challenges
Future Nutrient Challenges?

A Hydrologic ‘Short-Circuit’?

slide24

A Different “Yield”

Is your soil test

program ready?

1 kg P/km2/yr = 0.009 lb P/acre/yr

10 kg P/km2/yr = 0.09 lb P/acre/yr

100 kg P/km2/yr = 0.9 lb P/acre/yr

USGS

slide25

110

100

90

80

High

Yield (% of maximum)

Med

70

60

Low

50

40

0

1

5

30

60

Soil Test P (lbs/acre)

Soil Test P (lb/acre)

V.low

Agronomic Threshold/Critical Value

This UK Knows - Well

Sikora, pers. comm.

slide26

110

100

90

Yield (% of maximum)

80

Limited Risk

Risk

of P runoff

of P runoff

70

60

50

Environmental Threshold

This UK Does Not Know Well

40

???

Soil Test P (lbs/acre)

Sikora, pers. comm.

slide27

Predicting Water Soluble P from Mehlich III P on Twenty Kentucky Soils

D’Angelo, pers. comm.

water quality and pue win win
Water Quality and PUE = Win-Win

Greater phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) improves water quality

Strategies:

P placement/banding below the soil surface

Additives: ???

The future:

Tie up/fix available fertilizer and manure P at the soil surface – gypsum and iron wastes

Move available P, chemically, a bit deeper into the soil, perhaps just 1 inch below the surface

slide29

Water Quality and NUE:

Guarding Against N Losses:

Volatilization of Ammonia (NH3)

Leaching of Nitrate (NO3-)

Denitrification into N2 and N2O

Immobilization into Organic N

John Sawyer, Iowa State University

slide30

IPNI, Fairchild

Water Quality and NUE:

Guarding Against N Losses:

Delayed/Split N Timing – reduce the probability

of denitrification and leaching

Fairchild, IPNI

slide31

Water Quality and NUE:

Guarding Against N Losses:

Reducing N Immobilization

and NH3 volatilization: N

Placement Below The Surface

maintaining sufficient nitrogen
Maintaining Sufficient Nitrogen

Increasing the N rate – “insurance” N may not be an option. Have you evaluated the alternatives? Don’t have to use steel & time.

Reduce the probability of denitrification and leaching with a nitrification inhibitor

nitrapyrin/N-Serve/Instinct, DCD, Super U)

Reduce volatilization with an inhibitor

NBPT/Agrotain, other NBPT formulations (jar test?)

New inhibitors? Not in short-term. But further out there is more to look for.

take home messages
N and P management options may change.

Can you reduce your N or P application rate by 5, 15 or 25%?

Sometimes an ‘on-farm’ test is needed.

Your N (P) rate

Your N (P) rate + product/practice X

Your N (P) rate + extra N (P); $N(P) =cost of X

Your N (P) rate – the N (P) it takes to pay for X; total $= cost of your old N (P) rate alone

Peace of mind comes at a price.

Take-Home Messages
slide34

Thank You!

Questions?

slide39

Schwab & Murdock

75 lb N/A, except control

slide40

Norman,

Univ. of

Arkansas

ad