|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|||
Biosolids as a Fertilizer for Winter Wheat
Gary
Poole Compare winter wheat yields, test weight, grain protein, and nitrogen and sulfur recovery from plots fertilized with biosolids versus anhydrous ammonia. Location: Mansfield,
WA Check - no fertilizer Biosolids were applied with a manure spreader on 15 October 92 to standing stubble and immediately incorporated by disking. The plots were 50 by 1000 ft and the harvest area was 25 by 995 ft. Eltan winter wheat was seeded 27 Aug 93 at 35 lb/ac on 14 inch row spacing. The treatments were replicated three times. The stand was very thick and uniform due to good seeding moisture and a long, warm fall. A short, mild winter and wet April and May got the stand off to a good start prior to the hot, dry summer. This turned out to be one of the driest cropping years on record. Shallow soil areas began to stress and burn in June. Harvest was 26 July 94 and utilized a set of jump scales. Postharvest soil samples were taken 14 Sep 94 with a Kauffman probe to a depth of 4 feet. Data
* Reps 1 and 2 were sampled in two locations within each plot, "S" = south, "N" = north. Conclusion All plots had a good, uniform stand of winter wheat in the fall. The biosolids treatments had a significantly greater vegetative cover than the other treatments in the fall. This resulted in greater competition to fall emerging weeds and reduced the possibility of wind erosion. The plot site received approximately 6.5 inches of precipitation from late May through August 1993 of the fallow period, over 350% of normal. Check yields were significantly lower than the other treatments. This was due to low residual fertility from previous crops. The check plots headed 16 days earlier than the other treatments, resulting in smaller heads with fewer kernels. The biosolids caused extensive lodging on the deeper soil resulting in heads that were poorly filled with shriveled kernels. Both rates of biosolids produced wheat plants that were taller and more prone to lodging. This is reflected in the low test weight of the biosolids treatments indicating increased stress in these plants. Protein was increased significantly in both biosolids plots, a factor which is undesirable for soft white wheat. The biosolids plots have increased residual nitrogen and sulfur as compared to the other treatments. The residual nitrates and sulfates from the 10 dry ton per acre treatment is at a level that is undesirable for normal crop production since these nutrients are subject to leaching. However, both rates of biosolids will provide a carryover of nutrients for the next crop. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Contact
us: Hans Kok, (208)885-5971
|
Accessibility | Copyright
| Policies | WebStats | STEEP Acknowledgement |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
