Jodi Boe

Two Graphics You Should Know Before the 2023 Growing Season

in , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter

The goal of AGVISE Newsletters is to inform you and your customers of important soil fertility information relevant to our area. Often, visuals or graphs are much more powerful at communicating a message than words. With that in mind, I want to share two figures I think you should know about going into the 2023 growing season with a short synopsis and where you can find more information on the topic.

Adapted from the “Biostimulants” episode of the University of Minnesota Extension Nutrient Management Podcast https://nutrientmanagement.transistor.fm/episodes/biostimulants-52305fc9-6c01-4907-8507-2bcf4c708a08

Right now, there are many biological products and fertilizer additives on the market. In particular, asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing products have gained a lot of attention, but many have little or no university research evaluating them. Any grower wanting to try new products should test them on a small acreage first, before adopting them across the whole farm. To the left is a diagram of how such an on-farm trial would look. The key factors of a meaningful on-farm trial include a control treatment (the standard practice), the standard practice plus the product, and randomized replication (at least three replicates, randomized so that one treatment is not always on the east or west side of the trial area).

If the standard nitrogen rate will be reduced when the product is used, a treatment should also be included that compares the same reduced nitrogen rate without the product (this three-treatment setup is what is pictured). If the standard nitrogen rate is higher than the crop N requirement, maybe if you do not have a current soil nitrate-N test or just general overapplication, a reduced nitrogen rate plus the product that produces the same crop yield as the standard practice does not mean that the product is producing additional nitrogen for the crop; it may just mean that the grower can cut back their standard nitrogen rate.

Slide from Dr. John Jones’ 2023 AGVISE Seminar presentation, Phosphorus and Potassium: A Fresh Look with Fresh Data https://www.agvise.com/resources/seminars-and-events/

With fertilizer prices remaining high, it is tempting to cut back phosphorus and potassium inputs to save money. As tempting as this is, do not cut back farther than the fertilizer rates needed to meet the critical soil test level, as optimum soil-test P and K levels are required to achieve the highest response from nitrogen fertilizer. While working to update the Wisconsin phosphorus and potassium fertilizer guidelines, Dr. John Jones at the University of Wisconsin has put together some excellent data illustrating the reality of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum: when P and K fertility needs are unmet, the return from nitrogen fertilizer investment will be reduced compared to when P and K are at optimum levels. This means pouring on more nitrogen will not increase crop yield unless you are doing a good job of managing P and K too. Although not shown here, Dr. Jones also has data showing that corn and soybean yield response to P is reduced when K fertility needs are unmet.

John Breker

High Fertilizer Prices? Using Crop Removal P & K Rates is an Expensive Choice

in , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Spring 2023 Newsletter

If you thought high fertilizer prices would resolve after one or two years, it is looking like those prices are becoming the new norm. At such prices, every fertilizer dollar you spend must be spent to guarantee the best bang for each buck. This means soil testing makes more dollars and sense than ever.

Phosphorus and potassium are best managed with current soil test information to maximize crop yield potential and profitability. Yet, some people continue to apply phosphorus and potassium at crop removal (CR) rates as a way to maintain the soil fertility status quo. This is a major oversight because CR-based rates maintain soil fertility in a way that overapplies fertilizer to parts of the field with high soil test P or K that do not need more fertilizer, yet underapplies fertilizer to parts with low soil test P or K and ultimately sacrifices crop yield. This is particularly troublesome if the factor that limited crop yield was one of those nutrients! As a result, the reduced crop yield leads to a lower CR-based fertilizer rate that fails to fix the soil fertility issue, and you stay in a low soil fertility rut. For example, if soil test P is very low and limits crop yield, a crop removal-based P rate will undershoot the actual crop P requirement, resulting in reduced crop yield and continued nutrient mining year after year. A soil test-based P rate will show you exactly where more fertilizer is required to maximize crop yield and where you can reduce fertilizer rates to maximize profitability.

Another serious reason to avoid CR-based rates is the risk of off-site nutrient losses, especially phosphorus. When CR-based rates are applied on soils with high or very high soil test P, this increases the risk for environmental P loss to waterways that can degrade water quality and result in regulatory oversight. Precision soil sampling (grid or zone) and soil test-based fertilizer rates is the best way to maximize crop yield, profitability, and protect the environment.

John Breker

Banding Phosphorus and Potassium: Stretch your fertilizer dollars further

in , , /by

This article originally appeared in the AGVISE Laboratories Winter 2022 Newsletter

Broadcast or band? For phosphorus and potassium, these are big fertilizer questions. In recent months, high fertilizer prices have prompted farmers and agronomists to consider other strategies to reduce fertilizer costs without jeopardizing crop yield. Among the most common and effective options is placing fertilizer in a tight band below the soil surface, also known as a subsurface band.

Subsurface banding helps improve fertilizer recovery and efficiency. It ensures that fertilizer is placed in the plant root zone, facilitating direct uptake of crop nutrients. It also minimizes potential fixation reactions (aka tie-up) that reduce soil nutrient availability, allowing more phosphorus or potassium to remain available in soil for plant uptake. You ultimately get more bang for your buck on each pound of fertilizer applied. In addition, placing fertilizer below the soil surface protects fertilizer from

Idealized crop response to phosphorus as affected by fertilizer placement and soil test level (figure from J. Prod. Agric. 1:70-79).

soil erosion and runoff losses via wind and water. This is important for fall-applied phosphorus and potassium because spring snowmelt runoff and wind erosion can move fertilizer lying on the soil surface from neighbor to neighbor and watersheds beyond.

When we discuss banding phosphorus and potassium, it also comes along with the question, “How far can I cut fertilizer rates?” It is important to recognize that the improved efficiency of banding over broadcast is a function of soil test levels (figure) and proximity to the seed row. If you have high soil test levels (>15 ppm Olsen P), then the expected crop yield response to fertilizer, whether broadcast or banded, is lower. Banding fertilizer still helps with the fertilizer recovery, but the expected crop yield increase is often similar to broadcast. However, if you have low soil test levels, then the expected crop yield response is much greater with banding.

Where does seed row proximity fit in? The greatest efficiency comes with in-furrow or near-seed placement (e.g. 2×2 band), allowing effective fertilizer rates of one-half to two-thirds their broadcast equivalent. The near-seed placement also provides the starter effect, which enhances early plant growth and development in cool, wet soils of the upper Midwest and northern Great Plains. Of course, you must watch seed safety with any seed-placed fertilizer in the furrow.

For deep-band or mid-row band placement, the benefits over broadcast begin to disappear. These are still great placement options for anhydrous ammonia or urea, but the greater distance between the seed row and fertilizer band does not provide the same efficiency for immobile soil nutrients like phosphorus and potassium. This will surprise some people hoping that strip-till with deep-banded phosphorus and potassium or a one-pass air seeder with mid-row banders might be their answer to reducing fertilizer costs. For these “far-from-seed” banding options, reduced fertilizer rates are not suggested, and some in-furrow or near-seed banded fertilizer should still be applied for the current crop.

 

Jodi Boe

Soil Sample Before Tillage: Consistent sample depth matters!

in , , , /by

The fall harvest season is a busy time of year. Farmers need to finish harvest, apply fertilizer, and complete any tillage operations before the long winter sets in. Another field operation that needs to be completed within this flurry of activity is soil sampling, and sampling timing is crucial to getting quality and consistent soil cores.

Do your best to soil sample fields before any tillage pass. Tillage makes collecting soil cores with consistent depths very difficult, which can affect test results. Soil test results are only as reliable as the soil samples that were collected from the field. If a sample is submitted as a 0 to 6-inch sample and is only really the top 0 to 4-inch of the soil, soil test values are inflated compared to actual 0 to 6-inch results. The opposite happens if a core is actually deeper than the 0 to 6-inch depth: soil test values are diluted if the sample that was submitted is deeper. The table below shows an example of how test levels of non-mobile nutrients like P, K, and Zn decrease as soil core length increases.

Why tillage affects sampling depth consistency and core quality

Tillage breaks apart soil and introduces air, essentially “fluffing” the soil. Sampling after the soil has been “fluffed” means the sampler has to guess what actually represents a 6-inch soil depth for that field. What was a 0 to 6-inch core in the soil probe before tillage might actually take up 8 inches in the soil probe now, given the soil profile is now “fluffy” after tillage. Over time the soil will settle, but when does that happen? How fast does that happen? When will 0 to 6 inches of tilled soil in the soil probe actually represent a 0 to 6-inch depth again? No one can accurately answer these questions.

Beyond the soil being “fluffy” after tillage, tillage loosens soil aggregates, makes clods, and generally dries the soil. This means loose soil may fall out of the probe or the probe pushes around the clods at the surface and does not get a true 0 to 6-inch sample. This might mean a core that’s collected and sent to the laboratory might actually be a 2 to 8-inch depth core, or a 2 to 6-inch depth core.

A tip for sampling after tillage

If you have to sample after tillage, sample in the wheel track. The tire compresses the soil and allows you to get a better opportunity at a true 0 to 6-soil core depth.

Getting consistent soil core depths is crucial. Sampling before tillage is the best thing you can do to ensure quality cores with consistent depths. Sampling after tillage can result in lower test levels for non-mobile nutrients like P, K, and Zn. Please call either AGVISE laboratory and ask for one of our technical support staff if you have any questions about sampling after a field has been tilled. 

John Breker

Potassium and Drought: A Two-fold Water Uptake Problem

in , , , /by

Potassium is back on the radar for many farmers and agronomists across the upper Midwest and northern Great Plains. In the past two weeks, corn growth and development have reached the stage where potassium deficiencies are becoming quite apparent, and widespread dry soil conditions during the 2021 drought have worsened the problem. In some instances, corn is displaying potassium deficiency symptoms on soils with medium to high soil test K (120 to 180 ppm) in spite of potassium fertilizer application.

Potassium is required in large quantities for plant growth and development. The plant tissue K range in normal corn plants is 3-5% K, which is similar to nitrogen. A 200-bushel/acre corn crop will typically uptake 200 lb N, 108 lb P2O5, and 280 lb K2O per acre through the growing season (IPNI, 2014). In other words, an actively growing corn crop takes a lot of potassium! Luckily, you do not have to apply all that potassium as fertilizer, and much will come from the plant-available K pool in the soil.

Potassium deficiency in corn. Symptoms are leaf chlorosis (yellowing) and necrosis (death) beginning at the leaf tip and outer leaf margin and progressing toward the midrib, often with wavy leaf edges. Potassium is mobile in the plant, so symptoms appear on the lower leaves first as the plant remobilizes potassium from lower leaves to support new plant growth. 

Drought reduces potassium availability

The plant-available K pool becomes less available when soil water is limited. This has become the top story as the 2021 drought has continued. Plant roots acquire potassium mostly through a process called diffusion. Diffusion is the slow movement of ions through water around soil particles to the plant root for uptake. As soil becomes drier, the thickness of the water film around soil particles becomes thinner and thinner, thus the diffusion path for potassium ions becomes longer and longer. The soil pore space becomes mostly air with little water remaining. This ultimately slows the rate at which potassium from soil or fertilizer can reach the plant root, and potassium deficiency may occur.

The consequence of the drought-induced potassium deficiency is two-fold because potassium also plays an essential role in plant water regulation. Potassium-stressed plants experience reduced photosynthesis and transpiration rates, resulting in poor water use efficiency of the already limited soil water that is available. In a nutshell, low soil water content reduces potassium availability from soil and fertilizer, and then the soil water that is there is poorly utilized because of the lack of potassium. In addition to limited soil water, other factors compound to reduce potassium uptake: soil test K, soil texture, clay mineralogy, soil compaction, and even fluffy soil syndrome.

Believe it or not, fluffy soil syndrome has been a component of more than one phone call concerning potassium deficiency. Do you see greener plants near the planter wheel tracks or sprayer tracks? Fluffy soil syndrome occurs when soil has not completely settled since spring tillage, which results in poor soil particle-to-particle contact and slow soil-water-root diffusion routes for potassium ions. The wheel tracks adequately firmed the soil to provide good soil particle-to-particle contact, maintaining better potassium diffusion.

Potassium deficiency in corn: A case study

In June 2021, AGVISE started to receive plant and soil samples to diagnose suspected potassium deficiencies in various crops. This corn example from west central Minnesota included plant and soil samples collected in the good and poor areas of the field. The leaf K concentration was 0.59% in the good and 0.52% in the poor area. For comparison, the corn leaf K sufficiency range at this growth sage should be 2-3% K. The corresponding soil samples had soil test K at 148 ppm in the good and 140 ppm in the poor area. The soil test K critical level for corn is 150-200 ppm, and the farmer had applied 50 lb/acre K2O broadcast + incorporation, which is very close to the university sufficiency guideline for corn. Although the farmer more or less did everything right for a normal rainfall year, drought conditions have reduced potassium availability to the point where potassium deficiency symptoms were apparent and visible.

One week after the plant and soil samples were collected, the field received an inch of rain, and the potassium deficiency symptoms disappeared! The entire corn field is green now. It is amazing what a little water will fix.

Potassium deficiency in corn confirmed with plant and soil analysis. Potassium-deficient corn plant (left) displays chlorosis and necrosis of the outer leaf margin and wavy leaf edge. Plant and soil samples were collected June 2021 in west central Minnesota.

Correcting the problem

So, what do you do next? Do you try to apply an in-season rescue potassium fertilizer application? You still need rain to water in any fertilizer applied to the soil surface. If you had applied an adequate amount of potassium fertilizer before planting, then the appropriate decision is to wait for rain to improve soil and fertilizer potassium availability. However, some people may not have applied enough potassium initially. In these cases, a rescue application of 60 lb/acre K2O broadcast (100 lb/acre potash, 0-0-60) followed by some rain should correct the symptoms. Do not skimp with anything less because you are already behind the eight-ball and you will need that much material to cover the soil surface adequately and affect enough individual corn plants. In NDSU research (2014-2016), an uncorrected potassium deficiency in corn could cost 20-30 bushel/acre compared to corn receiving adequate potassium fertilizer.

For liquid materials, potassium acetate and potassium thiosulfate could be dribbled between the rows, but the potassium rate will need to be similar to the dry potassium fertilizer rate and cost will likely be greater. Remember, potassium is something required in large quantities, not something corrected with a small application of 5-10 lb/acre K2O.

There is no way we could have planned for the very dry conditions that are exacerbating potassium deficiency symptoms across the region. For the future, the best preventative strategy is precision soil sampling (grid or zone) and fertilizing accordingly. It is important to identify and address those parts of fields where potassium may be limiting crop yield potential and spend fertilizer dollars where needed.

John Lee

Uffda, that’s a lot of potash!

in , /by

Question: Can you really change the %K base cation saturation ratio?

This winter, we have gotten more questions from farmers asking about the base cation saturation ratio (BSCR) concept. The farmers had attended a series of meetings where the speakers encouraged farmers increase the %K saturation in their soils and apply high potassium fertilizer rates to soils, even though there was little to no chance to get a crop yield response. In short, the BSCR concept revolves around reaching a certain percentage (%) of each base cation in your soil to obtain the “ideal” soil. If you do not have the right percentage of each cation, then you are instructed to apply large amounts of fertilizer to reach this “ideal” balance of each cation. Potassium is the most common nutrient where people fall into the BSCR trap, often suggesting that extra potassium will “fix” their soil.

Since the 1940s, university and industry researchers from around the world have thoroughly debunked the BCSR concept. But sometimes, you just need to show people how this works in the real world to get their attention. To help farmers see the silliness of the BSCR concept, we conducted a simple field project in 2015 to show just one flaw in the failed BSCR concept, focusing on its primary claim that you can actually change the %K saturation in soil. We identified three soils in Manitoba, Minnesota, and North Dakota with low initial %K saturation. The goal was to increase %K saturation into the 4 to 6% range, which is recommended by BCSR promoters. We applied a staggering rate of 1000 lb/acre K2O (1666 lb/ acre potassium chloride, KCl, 0-0-60). You are probably thinking that 1000 lb/acre K2O is a lot of potash! And so did we. We called the project the “uffda” project because my Norwegian grandfather, who farmed in southern Minnesota 60 years ago, would have looked at the high rate and said, “Uffda, that’s a lot of potash!”

But, we failed to achieve the “ideal” 4 to 6% K saturation (Table 1). As expected, soil test K (part per million, ppm) increased substantially, but the %K saturation did not reach the “ideal” soil range even with the enormous potassium fertilizer rate.

Table 1. Soil test potassium and potassium base saturation after application of 1000 lb/acre K2O (1666 lb/acre potassium chloride, KCl, 0-0-60).
Location Soil test K, ppm K saturation, %
initial final initial final
Northwood, ND 156 430 0.6 1.6
Benson, MN 154 290 1.9 3.7
Roseisle, MB 50 330 0.4 2.8

Do you need more proof? Let’s see what the plants said. The soybean plant tissue K concentrations did not change either because the soil test K (ppm) was sufficient and above the 150 ppm critical level (Table 2). Simply put, the proven university-developed soil fertility guidelines would have told you that more potassium was not needed. I know a few farmers who were convinced to follow the BCSR concept, which only wasted their valuable dollars and time on the failed idea.

Table 2. Soybean leaf potassium concentration did not increase with additional potassium fertilizer applied on soils with soil test potassium above the critical level (150 ppm).
Fertilizer K Rate Soybean leaf K, %
lb/acre K2O Northwood, ND

STK 150 ppm

 Benson, MN

STK 190 ppm
0 3.2 1.9
20 2.6 1.8
100 2.7 1.8
200 3.0 1.8
1000 2.6 1.9
Soybean leaf K sufficiency level = 1.7 %K

All things considered, there are still good reasons to apply potassium fertilizer (moderate rates) to achieve profitable yield responses. Either way, the base cation saturation ratio (BCSR) concept is a really bad way to justify potassium fertilizer use, and it usually leads to very high fertilizer rates and costs. Here are some good reasons to include potassium in your soil fertility program:

  • Soil test K below 150 ppm (grid or zone soil test)
  • Soil test K below 200 ppm (composite soil test, high soil variability)
  • History of low plant tissue K when no potassium fertilizer is applied; potential compaction
  • Replicated strip trials showing profitable crop yield response to moderate potassium fertilizer rates
  • Chloride required for small grains; potassium chloride (0-0-60-50Cl) is the most common chloride source
Richard Jenny

Fertilizing soybean

in , , , , , , /by

Soybean acres expanded greatly across the northern Great Plains and into Manitoba through the 1990s and 2000s. Today, soybean occupies a large portion of planted acres and makes a desirable rotation crop in canola, corn, and small grain production systems. As soybean has advanced northward and westward, soybean is often billed as a low maintenance crop, requiring no fertilizer or even seed inoculation. The fact is, if you expect soybean to be a low maintenance crop, you can expect low yield results. Achieving high soybean yields starts with a good, long-term soil fertility plan.

Nitrogen

Soybean yielding 40 bu/acre requires about 200 lb/acre nitrogen, but luckily you do not have to provide all the nitrogen! Soybean relies on nitrogen-fixing bacteria to meet its nitrogen requirements. Legumes, like soybean, form a symbiotic relationship with N-fixing bacteria, housed in root nodules, to provide sufficient nitrogen. Each legume species requires a unique N-fixing bacterium, thus an inoculant for lentil or pea does not work on soybean. Soybean seed must be inoculated with the N-fixing bacteria Bradyrhizobia japonicum. Ensure you have the proper soybean-specific seed inoculant. You can count the number of nodules on soybean roots and verify the presence of active N-fixing bacteria in the nodules with bright pink centers. These soybean plants have enough active N-fixing bacteria to meet soybean nitrogen requirements.

For new soybean growers, the N-fixing bacteria Bradyrhizobia japonicum is not naturally present in soil and seed inoculation is required. During the first few years of soybean establishment, supplemental nitrogen may be required to achieve good soybean yield while the N-fixing bacteria population builds. University of Minnesota researchers in the northern Red River Valley showed that soils with less than 75 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch) required 40-50 lb/acre additional preplant nitrogen. If successful inoculation and good nodule counts are observed in the first year, then no additional nitrogen should be required in subsequent years.

Plant soybean on soils with less than 100 lb/acre nitrate-N (0-24 inch), if possible. High residual soil nitrate may delay root nodulation with N-fixing bacteria and increase the severity of iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC). Because soybean can fix its own nitrogen, you may recoup better economic return on soils with high residual nitrate with crops that do not fix their own nitrogen like corn or wheat.

Phosphorus

Soybean does not respond to phosphorus as dramatically as grass crops like corn or wheat do. Nevertheless, medium to high soil test P are required to achieve good soybean yields. Soybean responds to broadcast P placement better than seed-placed or sideband P. In dryland regions where soybean is planted with air drills, seed-placed P or sideband P is often the only opportunity to apply phosphorus. You must pay special attention to seed-placed fertilizer safety with soybean. An air drill with narrow row spacing (6 inch) should not exceed 20 lb/acre P2O5 (40 lb/acre monoammonium phosphate, MAP, 11-52-0). Fertilizer rates exceeding the seed safety limit may delay seedling emergence and reduce plant population. For wider row spacings, no fertilizer should be placed with seed.

Potassium

Soybean removes far more potassium in harvested seed than canola or wheat. Soybean yielding 40 bu/acre removes about 60 lb/acre K2O, while wheat yielding 60 bu/acre removes only 20 lb/acre K2O. Pay close attention to potassium removal across the crop rotation. After soybean is added to the crop rotation, cumulative potassium removal greatly increases, and declining soil test K is observed over time.

Do not place potassium with soybean seed; delayed seedling emergence and reduced plant population can occur. Any potassium fertilizer should be broadcasted or banded away from seed.

Sulfur

Sulfur deficiency in soybean is uncommon, yet sometimes observed on coarse-textured soils with low organic matter (< 3.0%). Soybean response to sulfur is usually confined to certain zones within fields. With additional sulfur, soybean can produce more vegetative growth, but more vegetative growth may increase soybean disease severity, such as white mold. The residual sulfur remaining after sulfur-fertilized canola, corn, or small grain is often sufficient to meet soybean sulfur requirements.

Iron

Soybean is very susceptible to iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC). Soybean IDC is not caused by low soil iron but instead by soil conditions that decrease iron uptake by soybean roots. Soybean IDC risk and severity are primarily related to soil carbonate content (calcium carbonate equivalent, CCE) and worsened by salinity (electrical conductivity, EC).

Soybean IDC is common in the upper Midwest, northern Great Plains, and Canadian Prairies, where soils frequently have high carbonate and/or salinity. Within a field, IDC symptoms are usually confined to soybean IDC hotspots with high carbonate and salinity; however, symptoms may appear across a field if high carbonate and salinity are present throughout the field. Soybean IDC severity is made worse in cool, wet soils and soils with high residual nitrate. Soil pH is not a good indicator of soybean IDC risk because some high pH soils lack high carbonate and salinity, which are the two principal risk factors.

Guidelines for managing soybean IDC:

  1. Soil test each field, zone, or grid for soil carbonate and salinity. This may require soil sampling prior to soybean (possibly outside of your usual soil sampling rotation) or consulting previous soil sampling records.
  2. Plant soybean in fields with low carbonate and salinity (principal soybean IDC risk factors).
  3. Choose an IDC tolerant soybean variety on fields with moderate to high carbonate and salinity. This is your most practical option to reduce soybean IDC risk. Consult seed dealers, university soybean IDC ratings, and neighbor experiences when searching for IDC tolerant soybean varieties.
  4. Plant soybean in wider rows. Soybean IDC tends to be less severe in wide-row spacings (more plants per row, plants are closer together) than narrow-row spacings or solid-seeded spacings.
  5. Apply chelated iron fertilizer (e.g., high quality FeEDDHA) in-furrow at planting. In-furrow FeEDDHA application may not be enough to help an IDC susceptible variety in high IDC risk soils (see points #2 and #3).
  6. Avoid planting soybean on soils with very high IDC risk.

Zinc

Zinc deficiency in soybean is rare, even on soils with low soil test Zn. Soybean seed yield response to zinc is limited on soils with less than 0.5 ppm Zn. More zinc sensitive crops like corn, dry bean, flax, and potato will respond to zinc on soils with less than 1.0 ppm Zn. If zinc sensitive crops also exist in the crop rotation, you may apply zinc with broadcast phosphorus or potassium during the soybean year as another opportunity to build soil test Zn across the crop rotation.