Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:20:02.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field experiments comparing ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate and urea applied repetitively to grassland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. R. Devine  and
M. R. J. Holmes
J. R. Devine
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Levington Research Station, Ipswich
M. R. J. Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Levington Research Station, Ipswich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Ten experiments were carried out on grassland in various parts of England and Scotland to compare ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate, urea with less than 1% biuret and urea with about 4% biuret. The grass was cut a number of times during the season and each nitrogen fertilizer was applied at rates supplying 30 and 60 lb. per acre of nitrogen in spring and after each cut except the last.

2. Total yield and yields at most individual cuts of both dry matter and nitrogen in the herbage were increased by each increment of applied nitrogen.

3. Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate gave similar dry-matter yields at all cuts in six experiments, while in four on calcareous soils ammonium sulphate gave lower yields than ammonium nitrate at one or more cuts. Ammonium sulphate gave lower yields at the second or third cuts in more experiments than at the first cut.

4. Urea with < 1% biuret gave lower dry-matter yields than ammonium nitrate at one or more cuts in eight of the ten experiments. Urea became less efficient relative to ammonium nitrate as the season advanced.

5. The efficiency of urea with < 1% biuret relative to ammonium nitrate in each experiment was positively correlated with the ammonia absorption potential of the soil.

6. Urea with < 1% biuret and urea with about 4% biuret gave similar yields.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , May 1963 , pp. 297 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Devine, J. R. & Holmes, M. R. J. (1963 a). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Devine, J. R. & Holmes, M. R. J. (1963 b). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Green, J. O. & Cowling, D. W. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 126.Google Scholar
Larsen, S. & Gunary, D. (1962). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 13, 566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. P. & Chapman, H. D. (1951). Soil Sci. 71, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templeman, W. G. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Schreven, D. A. (1955). Van Zee tot Land, 11, 1.Google Scholar
van Schreven, D. A. (1956). Sixth Int. Congr. Soil Sci., Paris, 4, 65.Google Scholar
Volk, G. M. (1959). Agron. J. 51, 746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar