.IVour Goal.<

"Profit F.rom ?,'ur /VO.Ur FarmExperience " I '.

.lVour Practices./ 'ou' ndividual Fields

• Short term rental ground

• Long term family farm ground

• Possibly sell in next two years

• Next generation going to continue on

.t A Competitive Business.I Productivity vs. Cost

.I Most Economical Yield (MEV)

2

.' larn,dlcosts• TiU;agje1 practices and the cost of it• Eq1u:ipmernil needs• tns urance, U:ti!ll.tiles• Labor• Depreciation, Interest• Seed• Crop Protectorants• Fertilizers• On and on and on

./ rJl!a:n;y expense fines, but fe\v income lines

• This year's productivity proves it

3

.I Always remember yourgoals for each field

.I Plan for a MEV

.t Balanced So"1Fertility

• YOtJ (~rethe cook• The soil tS the plate• The crop is the consumer

Soil Sample Soil Sample Soil Sample Soil Sample

.I Plant NITROGEN low• N loss by leaching, especially on sandy

soils under heavy rainfall conditions -

_• Low so-itorqanlc matter levels

• Col:d, wet weather or hot, dry weather

• Pl10wilng do;wn e'xcess amounts of highcarbon ~mtature) plant residue, justbeifoJ9 p"an,ting

• Surtace nitrogen application inno ' weather

• Excess plam populations• lack of nodulation activity in legumes

• Excessive soil acidity

•••••••••••••••

FOJ the past tour years in I'Innoirs; agronomistshave been receilvi1n:g reports ot stunted purplecorn. Every year, the problem seems to becomemore wioespreao.

Symptoms appear soon after the seedlingsemerge from the soil. The young plants turn pur-ple, indicating a low phosphorus content. Typically,the root systems, are btunt and restricted. Affectedplants occur in qroups and may occupy sizableareas. Aqronornlsts agree that the condition is a Pdeii1ci:e'ril\cy caused by a restricted root system.However, soil test P levels are usually adequate,thus the con:d;ilti1ons affecting the roots are notknown.

Chemical tests 01 soils from fields with the stunt-ed corn probtem show that many of the fields haveacid soil. Otten soil acidity is partly due to residualacidity from N fertiHzers. For profitable corn andsoybean production, soil pH should be no lessthan 6.0.

./ Plant PHOSPHORUS low

• Plant under nitrogen stress or stress fromother el1ements, such as zinc

• Poor root systems

• Soil high in iron and/or aluminum

.I Plant POTASSIUM low

• Weather too wet or too dry

• Leached, sandy soils

• Heavy removal by previous crops, suchas altaJfa" sHage, etc.

• Poorly drained soils (clay pans, etc.)

EveFY 1'00: lbs, of materiel adds 22 lbs, K20~about 22 Ibs. S(in readily available sulfate form), and 11 lbs, Mlg. Thus, i:facorn recommendation calls for 160 lbs, K20 and soil testsshow low soi,llSand Mg (which often happens together), onecould: use 1150 lbs, of K-Mg-SO'4 to, supply sutticient Mg andS for a 1!25 bu. corn crop. The remai'ni,ng K20 needs couldthen be supptied with KC1.

When Hme is needed, a high Mg f,~mesource shoutd beused! to balance to soil's Mg leve], This is more economical,M'g oxides also can be used to correct tow soil Mg levels: butremember, they increase the soil pH level, If the son's pH isalready adeqiuate-or even high, do not use oxides.

If K is not needed, magnesium sulfate should be used. If Kand} S are not needed, Mg chelates or silicates can be used.

Areas where the potassium-maqnesium sulfates would bemost useful; are: (1:) on sandy soils where Sand Mg can bereadily leached, (2) in areas where dolomitic limestone is notreadily available, and (3) on high pH soils where limingmaterials are not required.

···'·}/.<:.'i.}:·':' ,.,..< '., .. ,. " .. " .,.::,,"

..,.:.' ::.' : :..::.': ····•·•··.·.·.•.•··.•·:i::: •••••••••·•·•••••••••••••••••••••;!••!••::f:.·: ••.................:..

o~o;

{::"···i<

C.E.C. stands tor Cation, Excbenqe Capacity. It is a mea-SlH"S' 01 the amount of electrical charge j,n a so,ill!.1;1a soil hasa I'ow number C.E.C. (say, I'ess than 9), it Is a sandy soil, orone low in clay and orqanic matter.lt the C.E.C. is higher(say, 9,to 25), then it is a silty or toamy type- soil, If a soil hasa very high C.E.C. (say, 25 to 100), then it is high in clay andmost likely, high in organic matter.

The neg.ative charge' (or C.E.C.) of a soil is largely deter-mined by the amount 0] ctay and organi!c matter .t contains.It is the negative electrical: charge that permits a soil to holdpositively charqed elements such as potassium, magnesium,calcium, hydrogen, and the ammonium form of nitrogen.Therefore, C.E.C. j;s important as to how a soil should bemanaged. The farmer can do almost nothing to change thevalue 011 the C.E.C., but knowing what it is can help himknow how to best manage his soil.

The following chart shows the range in which the C.E.C.should be expected to fall:

Soil Textures:

. Coarse Soil (sands)Medium Soils (silts)

Fine Soils (clays).QJ~nic SQils .

Common C.E.C. Ran e

2-1510-2520-50501

[\) •.•. » ...

\i:.i/:

On mineral soils having a C.E.C. g;reaterr than 10;,bulk applications ot potash and faU applications ofammonium terms 01 N are feasible, less than 10·,potash should be applied on an annual basis and Nshould be applied only in the spring. Fall applica-tions of potash and N are not recommended onorg.anic soils.

Percent Bese Saturation refers to the percentageof: the: C.E.C. taken up by a given cation (positivelycharqe d ions-Ca, Mg, K, etc.). Pe·rcent BaseSatusation of soils should be within the followingranges:

Ran. ein % Saturation

CrlCium 50-70Magnesium 5~20

I

Potassium 2-6

Boron is. one· of the essentlal plant nutrients. It isrequaed in! small amounts. Care must be takenwhen applyinq it Evenly topdress 2 to 4 lbs. b,f actu-al B per acre on crops like alfalfa. Broadcast (no rowapplication) only 1/2 to 1 lb. B per acre on sensitivecrops, like corn. See your CPS crop consultant formore information on rates and ptacement of boron.

Boron, deficiency is most Hkely to occur on sandy,low orqanic, or old tnig.h~yleached soils. High pH winmake the probability of B stress even greater. Manylow' soll and! plant boron tests were noted with theheavier rainfall ln early 1975.

Furthermore, drought also reduces availableboron by reducing its normal release from soilorganic matter.

Boron can be easily reached from a soil; therefore,because of danger of toxicity and/or leaching losses,never app·iy more B than is needed for the crop inquestion.

Plant BORON low

• High pH soils

• Highly reached sotls

• low organic sorts

• Plam stressed for N (corn andother grasses)

• Adverse weather (too wet or too dry)

• Growing high B response crop,such as alfalfa

The tact that corn responds we·Uto -zinc is widelyknown, Plant analysis data from our 1974 plotsshown below demonstrate how corn amid soybeansg;rowi;ng on six adjacent paired pilots, d!iiff~r ~nresponse' to plowdown zinc applications.

(* Four plots received Zn, two did not)

I COJn* S . b n*I " ·oy·ea,

PI'an,1 S'ampllng NoZn +Zn Ave'. NoZn +Zn Ave.

Slag,e (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

Seedti1lilg 28 47 40 24 34 32Vegetative I 22 34 30 32 42 38

Broom' I 22 32 28 30 38 35FruiUn'g I 21 31 28 30 39 36I

I

Mature I 14 26I

22 /15 17 16

Ave. Yield(bu'/A)

I

I

1153 160!;rr

1

1591 53I

53 53

MORE ON' NITROGEN- SOURCES;

Missouri researchers have, reported r esu I t s, with, several N sources on whea.t •.corn and, sor ghums., Results, indicated Uttl:e yield! differences. Their 3-yearaverage wheat results· at 40. lb. N per acre were·:

N TreatmentYIeld (hulA)

N Fall applied N Spring applle. Source Avg.

NoneAmmoniumNitrateUre~Sulfur coate~ ureaTime Avg.

39.743.545.942.6

41.8'511.0\50'.1l431.&

40'.747.2:4&.01

43'.242.9; 46.11

Fall! applied, N was not quite as good as Spring. Sulfur coated urea wasnot as good as ammonIum.nitrate or urea. A higher N; rate (80 lb.)t failed to.increase yield but did increase protein content 01 grain 3S did Spring applica-tion.

Similar studies with corn produced higher grain yield at: a 200- lb. N: rateas compared with a 100 lb. N: rate. Pre-plant andl sidedress urea" N solutionand AN were near equal in performance, with ure~ better at the 100 lb. N: rate.Generally, sidedress N slightly out yielded pre.-plant:: N which, in turn, outyielded Fall N. SCU·looked best in these Missouri! trials at the 200' lb. Ntrate. Un. one year of the three, the 100 lb. N rate was sufficient (with cornfo llm.,ing, soybeans).

With sorghum' where urea. ammoniumsulfate and runmoniumnItrate wcf'~ com-pared, these researcher9 found little differencci in ~ sources.

Once again, your ed.itor concludes that it :is more important to spendeHort OIl< setting propel' yield goab and tlitePild'eve Iopdrrg a balanced N-P-Kpsogr an» to meet the needs rather than to w81sl!:etoo much time and effort onsources. Soi] t es t Lng and plant ana<Iyses; are essential ingredients in develop-ing these b a.llanced' progs ams, Are yOllJmak Lng fu:n use of these tools for yourcustomers·'?!

NITROGEN LOSSFROM UREA

Much has been written about ammonia losses' when urea is applied to thesoil surface. However,. more recent Texas studies (using both laboratory vs.field methods to estimate losses) indieate that laboratory methods over-estimate the losses. Field losses of Ul'ea,-N when directly measured weresmall (0 to' 9%, d'epcnd'Eng,upon rate applied) as compared with 13 to 31% under1all>'conditions. Under field uptake cond.t t Iores , ammonia loss appe ar ed to bein the range of O to 39% for the' first year , out the see end year bermuda grassrecovered more N' and! as 8' r:eSU'ft1 the total hro year recovery was equal to thatof the ealciUlll' ni trate sOtfr'ce·.

These studies r epor t ed by Hargrove and Kissel (Texas A & M) show that30 to 57% of the urea was hydrolyzed the first day after application and theprocess was essentially complete within 10 days.

-2-Agrico FarmCenter

i\<jtico Chemical Company• P.O. Box 26 Buinbridqe,NewYork 13133