Alternative N-fertilizers:

Do They Work Better?

Nitrogen Management

Goal:

- Match crop need with fertilizer and/or manure applied

to optimize production economics

- Ensure maximum nutrient use efficiency by timing

and placement of N in such a way as to reduce losses

to the environment

- Use the more effective source of nitrogen

• How can we manage to improve nitrogen use

efficiency (NUE)?

Nitrogen Use Efficiency is Increasing

Figure 1. Trends in maize grain yield, use

of N fertilizer, and Partial Factor

Productivity from applied N fertilizer (PFPN,

kg grain yield kg−1 N applied) in the USA.

Sources of data: Mean annual maize

yields, National Agricultural Statistics

Service, USDA www.usda.gov/nass/; mean

annual N fertilizer N use, USDA Annual

Cropping Practices Surveys (> 2000 farms

representing 80 to 90% of the USA maize

area), Economic Research Service, USDA,

www.ers.usda.gov/

From Cassman et al., 2002

•U.S corn grain

production has

increased

• Fertilizer N use

has leveled off

since 1980

Optimizing Nitrogen Use

• Exploit improvements in nitrogen use efficiency

(NUE) from genetics and cultural practices

• Manage N to avoid losses

- Improve N rate decisions

- Placement – Control NH3 and NO3 loss

- Timing – Use sidedress or delayed applications if

leaching or denitrification risk is high

- Use effective sources

Importance of Timing Nitrogen Fertilizer to Crop Growth Stage

Early Growth

Rapid Growth Maturing

Late Loss

100

75

50

25

0 May June July Aug Sept

80% of requirement after V8 - 10

Sidedress

Sea

son

al

Nit

rogen

Up

tak

e, %

Alternative Nitrogen Fertilizer Products

Slow Release

• Coated fertilizers

• More complex materials

Additives

• Microbial inhibitors

• Others

Objectives of Southern Region Water Program: Nutrient Management Team

Within each state:

- Compare yields from replicated studies for

different N fertilizer sources (alternative N

fertilizers vs the standard N fertilizer used in

that state).

- Each state will compare Nutrisphere and ESN,

where appropriate. Some states will compare

additional slow release fertilizers or additives.

Individual State

Nitrogen Fertilizer Trials

Wheat Results

50 lb N

2010 Wheat Yield: Oklahoma

No-till: There was no significant yield

benefit of using a product or additive

compared to UREA at the same rate.

Optimum yield at 75 lb N/ac.

Conv.: There was no significant yield

benefit of using a product or additive

compared to UREA at the same

rate. Significant rate difference.

Optimum yield at 75 lb N/ac.

75 lb N 100 lb N

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yie

ld B

u/a

c

Conventional

50 lb N 75 lb N 100 lb N

0

10

20

30

40

50

Yie

ld B

u/a

c

No-Till

2011 Wheat Yield: Oklahoma Conv.: There was no significant yield

benefit of using a product or additive

compared to UREA at the same rate.

Significant rate difference. Optimum

rate at 100 lb N/ac.

No-Till: There was no significant yield

benefit of using a product or additive

compared to UREA at the same rate.

Significant rate difference. Optimum rate

at 75 lb N/ac.

50 lb N 75 lb N 100 lb N

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Yie

ld B

u a

c-1

Conventional

50 lb N 75 lb N 100 lb N

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Yie

ld B

u a

c-1

No-till

Wheat Protein: Oklahoma

• Across both locations and years there was no

significant difference in grain protein when a

product or additive was added when

compared to UREA at the same nitrogen

rate.

Wheat Yields: Piedmont, North Carolina

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 45 70 95 120 145

Gra

in Y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

N Fertilizer Application (lb/ac)

UFP UAN

Control

*Year, Rate, Source

UAN>UFP

95 lb N

UAN better

than

Nitamin.

Optimum

rate at 95

lb N/ac.

Wheat Yield: Piedmont North Carolina 2008 and 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200

Gra

in y

ield

bu

/ac

N Application rate lb/ac

ESN

UAN

UCAN

Nutrisphere

Check

*Rate, Source

120 lb N; ESN <

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

60 90 120 150

Gra

in y

ield

(bu/a

c)

N application (lb/ac)

ESN

Nutrisphere

UAN

UCAN

All fertilizers were the same

except ESN (one year).

Optimum N rate, 95-145 lb

N/ac.

Corn Results

Relative Corn Yield: Alabama, 2008-2011

Corn Yield and N Response: Arkansas 2010

0

40

80

120

160

Corn

gra

in y

ield

(bu/a

cre

) ESN Urea

N source

**

0

40

80

120

160

13

Corn

gra

in y

ield

(bu/a

cre

)

60 120 180

a

b

c LSD = 12

ESN produced greater yields than UAN. Yield

increased up to 180 lb N/ac.

Corn Yield: New Mexico

UAN,

Urea, and

Agrotain

with Urea

performed

the same

under

irrigated

conditions.

Corn Yields: North Carolina

0

50

100

150

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Gra

in y

ield

(bu/a

c)

N application rate (lb/ac)

UFP 04

UFP 05

*Year, Rate, Source

UAN>UFP in 2005

175 lb N

Piedmont

0

50

100

150

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Gra

in y

ield

s (b

u/a

c)

N application rate (lb/ac)

UFP Tidewater 04

UFP Tidewater 05

Coastal Plain

*Year, Rate

175 lb N

All fertilizers performed the

same except Nitamin.

Optimum rate, 175 lb N/ac.

All fertilizers performed

the same. Optimum rate,

175 lb N/ac.

Corn Grain Yield: North Carolina, 2008 and/or 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 50 100 150 200 250

Gra

in y

ield

(bu/a

c)

N application rate (lb/ac)

ESN

Nutrisphere

UCAN

UAN *Rate

145 lb N

Coastal Plain

All fertilizers performed the

same. Rate differences.

Optimum rate, 145 lb N/ac.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300

Gra

in y

ield

(bu/a

c)

N application rate (lb/ac)

ESN

Nutrisphere

Mountains

All fertilizers performed

the same. Rate

differences. Optimum

rate, 180 lb N/ac.

Grain Yield†

Nitrogen

Rate

(lbs/A)

UAN

UAN +

Nutrisphere

(0.5% v/v)

UAN +

Agrotain Ultra

(0.2% v/v)

UAN +

N-Sure

(50/50)

UAN +

CoRoN

(50/50)

UAN +

NDemand

(50/50)

--------------------------------------------------bu/A--------------------------------------------------

0 74 ‡

50 76

75 86

100 77 73 74 79 81 88

125 85 74 82 83 78 79 † Yields corrected to 15.5% moisture. ‡Means within the UAN column and rows are not significantly different (P=0.05).

Corn Yield: Texas Blacklands, 2010

Cotton Yields

Need a picture of a cotton field

Mean Relative Cotton Lint Yields: Alabama, 2008-2010

Seed Cotton Yield Response: Arkansas 2010

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 30 60 90 120 150 Seed

-co

tto

n y

ield

(lb

/acre

)

Total N Rate (lb/acre)

Control

500

800

1,100

1,400

1,700

2,000

Seedcotton y

ield

(lb

/acre

) ESN

Urea

*

Cotton Yields: New Mexico

UAN, Urea,

and Agrotain

with Urea

performed the

same under

irrigated

conditions,

except the 1X

Agrotain Urea.

Lint Yield†

Nitrogen

Rate

(lbs/A)

UAN

UAN +

Nutrisphere

(0.5 % v/v)

UAN +

Agrotain Ultra

(0.2% v/v)

UAN +

N-Sure

(50/50)

UAN +

CoRoN

(50/50)

UAN +

NDemand

(50/50)

---------------------------------------------lbs/A----------------------------------------------

0 1075 ‡

40 1053

60 971

80 1057 984 926 937 961 974

100 1040 937 1073 1020 1010 1064 † Yield based on five replications. ‡Means within the UAN (only) column and rows are not significantly different (P=0.05).

Cotton Yields: Texas Blacklands, 2010

Cotton Lint Yield: Texas

Brazos River Valley, 2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Untreated

CoRoN 128 oz/A (2X)

CoRoN 128 oz/A (3X)

Lin

t yie

ld,

lbs./acre

P>F = 0.8099

CV% = 5.2

Mean = 846 lbs/acre

(2X) – CoRoN applied @ 1st bloom

14 days later

(3X) - CoRoN applied @ 1st bloom

14 days later

14 days later

All treatments (including untreated)

received recommended soil fertility

based on soil test.

CoRoN UNT

2x 3x

Cotton Lint Yield: Texas

Lamesa AGCARES, 2007

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

Untreated

CoRoN 128 oz/A (2X)

CoRoN 128 oz/A (3X)

Lin

t yie

ld,

lbs./acre

P>F = 0.5366

CV% = 4.6

Mean = 1579 lbs/acre

(2X) – CoRoN applied @ 1st bloom

14 days later

(3X) - CoRoN applied @ 1st bloom

14 days later

14 days later

All treatments (including untreated)

received recommended soil fertility

based on soil test.

CoRoN UNT 3x 2x

Cotton Lint Yield: Texas

St Lawrence, 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Untreated

CoRoN 128 oz/A (2X)

CoRoN 128 oz/A (3X)

Lin

t yie

ld,

lbs./

acre

P>F = 0.6333

CV% = 3.8

Mean = 1549 lbs/acre

(2X) – CoRoN applied @ 1st bloom

14 days later

(3X) - CoRoN applied @ 1st bloom

14 days later

14 days later

All treatments (including untreated)

received recommended soil fertility

based on soil test.

CoRoN UNT

2x 3x

Cotton Lint Yield: Texas Blacklands, 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400L

int

Yie

ld (

lb/A

)

Check UAN

100

Treatment

b

a a a a a a

Nfusion

30:70

Nfusion

20:80

LSD = 105

125 100 125 100 125 0

Cotton Lint Quality: Texas Blacklands, 2007

Treatments Micronaire Length Uniformity Strength

Elongation

(units) (in.) (ratio) (g/tex) (%)

No N Applied 4.45 a* 1.11 82.6 28.0 8.5

32 UAN,100 lb N/A 4.25 b 1.14 83.3 28.2 8.4

32 UAN, 125 lb N/A 4.18 bc 1.13 82.3 29.2 8.3

Nfusion 30:70, 100 lb 4.03 c 1.14 82.3 29.1 8.2

Nfusion 30:70, 125 lb 4.23 b 1.13 82.9 28.6 8.2

Nfusion 20:80, 100 lb 4.2 bc 1.14 82.9 28.7 8.3

Nfusion 20:80, 125 lb 4.25 b 1.13 82.7 27.2 8.6

LSD 0.19 NS NS NS NS

*Means within a column followed by the same letter are not different (P>0.05) .

Grain Sorghum Yields

Grain Sorghum Yields: Texas Blacklands, 2011

Grain Yield†

Nitrogen

Rate

(lbs/A)

UAN

UAN +

Agrotain Ultra

(0.2% v/v)

Urea

(granular)

Super U

(granular)

ESN

(granular)

-------------------------------------------lbs/A-------------------------------------------

0 4442 b‡

30 4499 b 4335 4473 4328 4541

60 4965 ab 4802 4841 4715 4523

90 5301 a

120 5565 a † Yields corrected to 15.5% moisture. ‡Means within the UAN (only) column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05).

Take Home Message

There were few differences due to

Nitrogen Fertilizer Sources

for any of the soils, crops, or climates in the Southeast!

• Nutrisphere, Nitamin and Agrotain did not produce better

yields at any location for any crop where tested.

• ESN performed better than urea on corn and cotton in

Arkansas.

• ESN performed similarly or worse to UAN or urea in

Alabama (corn), North Carolina (corn and wheat), and

Oklahoma (wheat).

Authors

• Brian Arnall, Oklahoma State University

• Robert Flynn, New Mexico State University

• Mark McFarland, Texas A&M

• Charles Mitchell, Auburn University

• Morteza Mozaffari, University of Arkansas

• Deanna Osmond, NC State University

Publications

• Cahill, S., D. Osmond, C. Crozier, D. Israel, and R. Weisz. 2007.

Winter wheat and maize response to urea ammonium nitrate and a

new urea formaldehyde polymer fertilizer. Agron J. 99:1645-1653

• Cahill, S., D. Osmond, R. Weisz, And R. Heiniger. 2010.

Evaluation of alternative nitrogen fertilizers for corn and winter

wheat production. Agron J. 102:1226-1236.

Funding

We are indebted to multiple funding sources

• All projects: USDA NIFA Southern Region Water Program

• AL: Alabama Wheat & Feed Grain Committee, Alabama Cotton

Commission

• AR: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Agrium

Advanced Technologies

• NM: Agrotain International for product and New Mexico

Agricultural Experiment Station

• NC: USEPA 319 through NCDENR, Agrium, Corn Growers

Association of NC, Georgia Pacific, NC Cooperative Extension,

NC Small Grain Growers Association, Southern States, and Yara

• TX: United Sorghum Checkoff Program, Georgia Pacific