Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:13:55.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field experiments comparing ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate and urea combine-drilled with spring barley

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. Twenty-one experiments were carried out in various parts of England and Scotland in 1959–61 comparing two or more of the nitrogen sources ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate and urea, combine-drilled in compound fertilizers for spring barley.

2. Ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate combine-drilled at rates from 35 to 105 lb./acre of nitrogen checked early growth slightly in some of the experiments, with no important difference between the two sources, which also gave similar grain yields.

3. Calcium nitrate and urea combine-drilled at 45 lb./acre of nitrogen had no large effect on early growth, while at 70 and 90 lb./acre both fertilizers seriously delayed brairding and reduced the plant population in many of the experiments, especially in eastern England. They gave lower yields than ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate in many of the experiments in which early growth was affected, and gave lower mean yields at all rates of application.

4. In eleven of the experiments, broadcast applications of two or more of the four nitrogen fertilizers were compared. All sources gave similar mean yields.

5. There was a slightly smaller yield from combine drilling than from broadcasting ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate, and a markedly smaller yield from calcium nitrate and urea.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , November 1963 , pp. 381 - 390
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

Court, M. K., Stephen, B. C. & Waid, J. S. (1962). Nature, Land., 194, 1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. V. (1961). Exp. Husbandry and Exp. Hortic. Sta. Progress Rep., p. 33.Google Scholar
Low, A. J. & Piper, F. J. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, J. A. & Hanley, F. (1936). Agriculture, Land., 42, 1205.Google Scholar
Reith, J. W. S. (1952). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 20, 103.Google Scholar
Stephen, R. C. & Waid, J. S.Plant and Soil (in the Press).Google Scholar
Widdowson, F. V. & Cooke, G. W. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 50, 312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, F. V. & Penny, A. (1960). Exp.Husbandry, no. 5, 22.Google Scholar
Widdowson, F. V. & Penny, A. (1961). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1960, p. 52.Google Scholar
Widdowson, F. V., Penny, A., Williams, R. J. B. & Cooke, G. W. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar