Forage Response to Sulphur In Ontario. John Lauzon

Transcription

1 Forage Response to Sulphur In Ontario John Lauzon

2 Sulfur Cycle Burning fossil fuel H 2 S, SO 2 SO 2 oxidation precipitation SO 4 harvest run off Erosion volatilization H 2 S Organic Matter fertilizer Plant uptake oxydation S sulfides reduction SO 4-2 Soil minerals leaching

3 Need For Sulphur in Ontario 1880's gypsum (land plaster)was commonly applied in Ont. (applied as early as 1760) About 1880 super phosphate was introduced (14 % S) After 1950 ammonium phosphate became common (very little S) Recent work is starting to show Sulphur response

4 Sulphate (SO 4 ) wet Deposition Environment Canada

5 Sulphate (SO 4 ) wet Deposition Environment Canada

6 Sulphate (SO 4 ) wet Deposition Environment Canada

7 Sulphate (SO 4 ) Deposition From Environment Canada Monitoring Sites, Northern Sites Removed SO 4 kg ha -1 yr y = x R² = Adapted from Environment Canada data

8

9 Emission (Gg yr -1 ) Estimates of Anthropogenic Sulphur Dioxide Emissions: North America Western Europe China Gg = kg Smith et al 2011

10 Sulphur Crop Uptake and Removal Crop yield S uptake S removal (kg ha -1 ) Grain corn Soybean Winter wheat Mixed Hay 1 st Mixed Hay 2 nd Cabbage Potato Canola Canadian fertilizer institute, 1998

11 Alfalfa Response to Sulphur in 1975 Sulphur rate (kg ha -1 ) % Cut Legume Forage mass (Mg ha -1 ) Total (Sheard 1975)

12 Alfalfa Response to Sulphur in 1977 based on average of 2 N rates Sulphur application rate (kg S/ha) Cut Forage yield (kg/ka) total (Sheard 1977)

13 Alfalfa Sulphur Response in 2012 North of Fergus (Harrop) Treatment First Cut Alfalfa % of stand First Cut Yield kg/ha Third Cut Yield kg/ha Control 225 kg KCl/ha 270kg K 2 SO 4 /ha 31 b 35 b 56 a 4566 b 4474 b 6821 a 968 b 1067 b 2180 a 52 % 104 % All of the increase was due to greater alfalfa growth Lauzon and Ball 2012

14 Alfalfa Sulphur Yield Response in 2013 Treatment Wallenstein (Logel) Hesson (Runsteder) Listowel (McLagan) First Second First Second First Second Yield (kg/ha) Check a a Fall 50 kg/ha elemental S ab b Fall 100 kg/ha elemental S b b Potassium Sulphate 55 kg S/ha Potassium Chloride Same K level ab b a a Bonnie Ball

15 Alfalfa Sulphur Uptake Response in 2013 Treatment Wallenstein (Logel) Hesson (Runsteder) Listowel (McLagan) First Second First Second First Second (kg/ha) Check 6.6 a 3.2 a a 5.0 a 3.3 a Fall 50 kg/ha elemental S 8.0 a 4.1 a b 7.8 b 6.5 b Fall 100 kg/ha elemental S 8.0 a 5.3 b c 9.8 b 8.5 b Potassium Sulphate 55 kg S/ha Potassium Chloride Same K level 12.0 b 5.7 b c 9.9 b 6.7 b 6.7 a 3.5 a a 5.0 a 3.2 a Bonnie Ball

16 Yield (kg/ha) Yield (kg/ha) Alfalfa Sulphur Yield Response in 2014 near Lynden (Foster) sand texture st cut S kg/ha nd cut S kg/ha

17 Yield (kg/ha) Yield (kg/ha) Yield (kg/ha) Alfalfa Sulphur Yield Response in 2014 Elora Research Station st Cut S kg/ha nd cut S kg/ha rd cut S kg/ha

18 Yield (kg/ha) Residual Impact of 2014 Application with and without Sulphur in S kg/ha 1 st Cut nd cut S kg/ha

19

20 Yield (kg/ha) Yield (kg/ha) Residual Impact of 2014 Application with and without Sulphur in S kg/ha 1 st Cut nd cut S kg/ha rd cut S kg/ha

21 2006 Corn Sulphur Trial Sites by Middlesex S.C.I.A. Site Soil S (ppm) Corn yield Corn Yield With S No S bu ac -1 SJL SMR SSF SNS SRB SKP STL SMA SRM SJF SJF SBP SFH Average Peter Johnson

22 Corn Sulphur trials Number of sites 5 6 Yield (kg/ha) No Sulphur With Sulphur No Significant responses at any sites Stewart 2012 and 2013

23 Sulphur Response on Winter Wheat Number of sites Yield (bu/ac) No S With S Johnson 2006 and 2013

24 Summary Sulphur deposition has drastically decreased in Ontario High sulphur requiring crops like alfalfa are responding to sulphur fertilization We have seen response on about ½ of the alfalfa sites tested When increase in hay yield occurred, all of the increase was alfalfa

25 Questions?

26

27

28

29

30 Improved Forage Productivity with Improved Manure Use Christine Brown - OMAFRA FarmSmart Jan 20, 2018

31 Why Apply Manure to Forages? Apply P and K that crop has removed Save commercial fertilizer dollars Reduce storage requirements Spread out workload Reduce spring compaction damage Can we increase yield and/or quality?

32 Nutrients removed 3 years of Forages Seedling year 1 st full production year 2 nd full production year NMAN3 (AgriSuite) - Rotation Nutrient Status

33

34 Manure Has Fertilizer Value Animal Type DM Useable N 1 % lbs P K 2 0 Year 1 Value Yr 2-4 Value 3 lbs lbs $ $ Liquid Hog /1000 gal Liquid Dairy /1000 gal Solid Cattle /ton Poultry layers /ton Poultry broilers/ton Sheep /ton Horses /ton Spring applied; incorporated; 40% P in application year; Organic N and 40% P in yr 2-4

35 Example of Micro Nutrients in Manure DM Ca Mg Zn S Mn ~Value % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm $ Dairy 8.5 4,900 1, $30 /1000 gal 24 15,400 3, $15 /ton Swine 4 1, $15 /1000 gal Poultry 11 16, , $40 /1000 gal 53 46,000 2, , $25 /ton Beef ,000 15, , n/a $20 /1000 gal $20 /ton Sheep 31 15,000 3, n/a 140 $20 /ton Horse 33 17,000 5, n/a 113 $20 /ton This table is meant to show approximate value only since there is a large variation between farms

36 Yield & Quality Impact Surface Applied YIELD 12 % surface applied (2006) 7.2 % surface applied (2007) 7.1 % surface applied (2009) 9.7 % surface applied (2010) QUALITY 5.6 % more milk per ton of forage where manure was applied (2006) 4.4 % more milk per ton of forage where manure was applied (2009) YIELD + QUALITY 13.4 % advantage lbs milk per acre of forage (2006) 11.7 % advantage lbs milk per acre of forage (2009)

37 Represents 5 locations 2 or 3 cuts/site (~250 samples) each year st SUMMARY - YIELD Comparison Manure vs Fertilizer Applied to Forages Average of all Cuts After Application Treatment Yield 2006 Yield 2007 Yield 2009 Yield 2010 Yield 2011 Yield 2012 tons/ac % Δ* tons/ac % Δ tons/ac % Δ Tons/ac % Δ Tons/a c % Δ Tons/ ac Manure Fertilizer (0.1) Zero * % Δ = percent change compared to zero treatment Represents 5 locations 2 or 3 cuts/site (~250 samples) each year % Δ SUMMARY YIELD AND QUALITY Comparison Manure vs Fertilizer Applied to Forages Average of all Cuts After Application Treatment Quality * lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk/ac % Δ lbs milk / ac Manure 1, , , , , , Fertilizer , , ,966 (3.9) 2, Zero 1, , , , , , % Δ

38 Organic Amendment Synergy = $$ Economic opportunities with cover crops and organic amendments EXAMPLE: 2016 Cover Crops Oats with and without digestate Cover crop and Digestate Plots (harvested Oct 13, 2016) Yield Yield & Quality * Treatment (ave of 18 samples) Dry Weight (t/ac) % Δ Milk/ton Milk/ac $$/acre CC Oat ,985 2,997 $1,030 Digestate + CC Oat ,916 6,312 $2,168 *using Wisconsin MILK2013 and milk value = $0.78/L

39 4R s of Applying Manure to Forages Right Source Liquid Manure vs Solid Dairy vs other manure types Nutrient Composition

40 Uniform application is important to avoid smothering

41 4R s of Applying Manure to Forages Right Time During growing season As soon as possible after harvest Low risk of compaction

42 Avoid Application to New Seedings Limited field trials, but observations suggest: tire damage is exaggerated and crowns are less established /more vulnerable 2010 New seeding Manure ~ June 30 dry (lbs/ac) Treatment Manure 3,016 Fertilizer 3,979 Check New Seeding Treatment Dry lbs/ac Manure Spring applied 2,031 Fall applied 2,085 Check 2,198

43

44 Apply as soon after harvest as possible

45 4R s of Applying Manure to Forages Right Place Fertility needs Surface Applied vs Shallow injection Ensiled haylage, vs dry hay vs wrapped bales Disease risk i.e. Johnes

46 Compost and Biosolids Pellets on Forages Fertilizer added: 200 lbs of ~ 5 lbs S ( = S applied) Compost (Peel Region 5 and 10 ton/ac) lbs/ton available N-P K 2 0 (@5 ton rate = S) Biosolids 1 T/ac ( lbs available N-P K 2 0)

47 Compost and Biosolids Pellets on Forages Field 6 Yield dry t/ac Change Biosolids Pellets Pellets & Fertilizer % Pellets & Compost % Compost & Fertilizer % Pellets, Compost & Fertilizer %

48 Uniform Application is Important. Splash plate Veenhuis shallow injection

49 Splash plate Shallow injection Surface Band

50 Aerway slot injection Aerway

51 Yield and Quality Comparison Manure vs Fertilizer Applied to Forages Average of all Cuts After Application Treatment Yield DM basis Quality Yield + Quality DM basis tons/ac % Δ lbs milk / ton % Δ lbs milk / ac % Δ Fertilizer , , Splash Plate , , Surface Band , , Injected , , Zero Check , , Represents Oxford Centre, Salford, Brooksdale locations 2 nd, 3 rd & 4 th cuts

52 Ammonia Loss Measurements Summary ~75% loss when surface applied with no rainfall Rainfall shortly after application reduces ammonia loss Partial incorporation will reduce ammonia loss (15-20%) Higher liquid content manure infiltrates more quickly; can reduce loss Uniform application probably as important as actual application rate

53 Ammonia Loss Measurements

54 Ammonia loss up to 2/3 of the ammonia-n highest in the 1st 24 hours pooled areas Rainfall after application reduces ammonia loss.

55 Manure On Forages & Johne s Disease Avoid Applying manure to: calf / heifer pastures fields harvested for dry hay, especially calf /heifer hay A field with high ph or recently limed Apply manure to fields that will be ensiled or harvested for haylage. Proper fermentation appears to kill the bacteria. Use good ensiling techniques Top dress liquid manure as soon as possible after harvest. Sunlight and desiccation kill the MAP bacteria.

56 Field Situation Animal Class Should Manure be Applied? Pastures Calves & young heifers Pastures Cows Avoid Dry hay Manure On Forages & Johne s Disease Calves & young heifers No Avoid Legume and grass silage All OK Summer annual silage All OK Summer annual green chop All Avoid Source: E. D. Thomas William H. Miner Ag Research Institute

57 Right Rate 4R s of Applying Manure to Forages Rate usually limited by Ammonium N Crop damage Goal of no more than 50 lbs/ac as ammonium-n

58 Manure Applied to Forages Ideal application rates (between 3,000 to 4,000 gal/ac liq dairy) provide in the range of lbs/acre of available N-P K 2 0 and lbs elemental Sulphur An analysis at time of application will allow nutrient crediting

59 Why Apply Manure to Forages? Apply P and K that crop has removed Save commercial fertilizer dollars Reduce storage requirements Spread out workload Reduce spring compaction damage ~ 10-15% increase yield / quality

60 Dr. John Lauzon Christine Brown Associate Professor Field Crop Sustainability Specialist SES University of Guelph OMAFRA - Woodstock lauzonj@uoguelph.ca christine.brown1@ontario.ca x x Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs