mapvsdap
Post on 07-Apr-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 1/56
Comparisons ofComparisons of
MAP and DAPMAP and DAP……a review of literature a review of literature
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 2/56
Process of information acquisition
• Requested all PPI directors to pass on anyknown studies or data on MAP-DAPcomparisons.
• Each PPI director communicated with scientistsin their region requesting information oncomparisons
• An extensive search of Agricola and Agrisdatabases (keywords: phosphorus and fertilizer
and sources; ammoniated and phosphate andfertilizer; ammoniated and phosphorus andfertilizer; MAP and DAP, etc.) was performed
• A Google search was similarly performed.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 3/56
Ammoniated phosphate fertilizers
• Ammoniated phosphates are formed fromthe reaction of phosphoric acid (ortho- orpoly-) with ammonia.
• First major production in the U.S. began in
about 1920 (MAP).• In about 1954 major production of DAP was
initiated.
• Manufacture of the third member of the
group, ammonium polyphosphates (APP),began in earnest in the late 1950’s.
• APP is generally fluid, while MAP and DAPare granular.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 4/56
DAP (Diammonium phosphate)
• Single recognized grade in the worldmarketplace is 18-46-0. Lower analyses maynot be sold as DAP.
• Basic process for production involvesammoniation of phosphoric acid…
H3PO4 + 2NH3→ (NH4)2HPO4
• Requires relatively low impurity phosphoric
acid.• Higher acid quality requirement is becoming
a greater issue as phosphate rock (PR)quality declines, particularly in Florida.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 5/56
MAP (Monoammonium phosphate)
• There is no single commodity grade for MAP.Can vary… 10-50-0, 11-51-0, 11-55-0, andothers.
• Basic process for production involvesammoniation of phosphoric acid…
H3PO4 + NH3→ (NH4)H2PO4
• Lower quality, high impurity phosphoric acid
can be used in MAP production.• Thus, manufacture is favored where PR
quality is declining.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 6/56
World MAP and DAP production,
1999-2003
IFA, 2005
2 000
4 000
6 000
8 00010 000
12 000
14 000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
W o r l d p r o d u c t i o n , 1 0 0 0 t o n s
DAP
MAP
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 7/56
Characteristics of MAP and DAP
MAP DAP
Water soubility, % of total P 90-100 90-100
Saturated solutionpH 3.5 8.0
P, moles/l 2.9 3.8
NH4, moles/l 2.9 7.6
Partial pressure of NH3, mm Hg
(0.1 M solution)
75 C --- 0.9
100 C --- 5.6
125 C 0.05 28.8
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 8/56
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 9/56
MAP Fertilizer–soil reaction
q Residual granule &immediate soil interface
– Present either in originalgranule or formed:
– 5-10% of total P mayremain in thesecompounds in the granuleshell
• More soluble that varisciteor strengite but less solublethan DCPD below pH of 7
• Doesn’t form in fluid MAPformulations
q P-saturated zone
– Dissolution of Si, Fe, Al,Mn, Ca, Mg, K
– Precipitation of
• DCPD – main crystaline P• Amorphous Fe & Al
phosphates
• Struvite:Mg(NH4)PO4.6H2O
• Taranakites:
After Headley and McLaughlin
(NH4)3Al5H6(PO4)8.
18H2O
(Ca,Mg)(NH4)(Fe,Al)(PO
4)(F,OH).H
2O
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 10/56
q Residual granule &immediate soil interface
– Present either in originalgranule or formed:
– 5-10% of total P mayremain in thesecompounds in the granuleshell
• More soluble that varisciteor strengite but less solublethan DCPD below pH of 7
q P-saturated zone
– Much less dissolution ofmetals except K
– Precipitation of
• Ca and Mg phosphatesincluding DCPD
• Mixed CaNH4 and MgNH4
phosphates includingstruvite
• Colloidal apatite
• 3 to 5 times moresolubilization of organicmatter than with MAP …believed to interfere withgrowth of large crystals &allow increased P mobility
(Ca,Mg)(NH4)(Fe,Al)(PO4)(F,OH).
H2O
DAP fertilizer–soil reactions
After Headley and McLaughlin
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 11/56
MAP and DAPfield comparisons
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 12/56
Wheat
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 13/56
Kansas- Winter WheatYield response to different sources of P- Broadcast
0
20
40
60
G r a i n y i e l d ,
Check MAP DAP UAPP
Year 2 Year 1
Kansas Fertilizer Research Report
45.351.0 49.7 49.2
23.8
45.641.6
38.6
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 14/56
Kansas- Winter WheatYield response to different sources of P- In-furrow
0
20
40
60
G r a i n y i e l d ,
Check MAP DAP UAPP
Year 2 Year 1
Kansas Fertilizer Research Report
45.351.0 49.7 52.3
23.8
35.8 37.433.3
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 15/56
Kansas- Winter WheatYield response to P source and placement (year one)
45.351.0 49.7 52.351.0 49.7 49.2
010
20
30
40
50
60
Check MAP DAP UAPP
G r a i n y i e
l d ,
Band Broadcast
Kansas Fertilizer Research Report
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 16/56
Kansas- Winter WheatYield response to P source and placement (year two)
23.8
35.8 37.433.3
45.641.6
38.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
Check MAP DAP UAPP
G r a i n y i e
l d ,
Band Broadcast
Kansas Fertilizer Research Report
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 17/56
Montana- Winter WheatHeads per ft. of row as affected by P source,
rate (N), and soil- In-furrow
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30
N applied with seed, lb/A
W
h e a t h e a d s , n o .
p e r f t . r o
Calcareous- MAP Calcareous- DAP
Non-calcareous- MAP Non-calcareous- DAP
Smith et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 18/56
Montana- Winter WheatYield as affected by P source, rate (N), and soil- In-furrow
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30
N applied with seed, lb/A
W h e a t y i e l d ,
b u /
Calcareous- MAP Calcareous- DAP
Non-calcareous- MAP Non-calcareous- DAP
Smith et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 19/56
Montana- Winter WheatYield as affected by P source, rate (P), and soil- In-furrow
After Smith et al.
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
lb P2O5/A
Y i e l d , b u / A
MAP
DAP
MAP
DAP
NonNon - -calcareous soilcalcareous
soil
C a l c a
r e o u s
s o i l
C a l c a
r e o u s
s o i l
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 20/56
South Dakota- Spring WheatEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow
10690
112 106
80 85
0
25
50
75
100
50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h e
c
MAP DAP TSP
Gelderman et al.
7 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 21/56
South Dakota- Spring WheatEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow
128
283211
61
38
0
25
50
75
100
125
50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h e
c
MAP DAP TSP
Gelderman et al.
28 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 22/56
North Dakota- Spring wheatStand reduction as influenced by N and P source and rate for
three spreader types- In-furrow
Deibert et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 23/56
Barley and oat
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 24/56
Montana- BarleyStand density as affected by P source and rate (N)
(year one)- In-furrow
40
50
60
70
10 20 30
N applied with seed, lb/A
P l a n t s p e r m e t e r a
t t i l l e r i n g
Christensen et al.
MAP y= 56+1.026x-0.0298x2
DAP y= 60.8+0.892x-0.0398x2
UAPP y= 39.3+2.777x-0.0826x2
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 25/56
Montana- BarleyCulm density as affected by P source and rate (N)
(year one)- In-furrow
150
175
200
225
250
10 20 30
N applied with seed, lb/A
C u l m s p e r m e t
e r r o w
Christensen et al.
MAP y= 218.0-1.004x+0.0159x2
DAP y= 189.5+3.268x-0.1124x2
UAPP y= 188.5+5.063x-0.1791x2
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 26/56
Montana- BarleyCulm density as affected by P source and rate (N)
(year two)- In-furrow
290
310
330
350
370
10 20 30 40
N applied with seed, lb/A
C u l m s p e r m e t
e r r o w
Christensen et al.
MAP y= 316.7+2.079x-0.0331x2
DAP y= 268.6+4.767x-0.0849x2
UAPP y= 343.5-1.529x+0.0206x2
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 27/56
South Dakota- BarleyEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow
8879
86
56
8672
0
25
50
75
100
50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h
e c
MAP DAP TSP
Gelderman et al.
7 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 28/56
South Dakota- BarleyEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow
76
3830
4
72
18
0
25
50
75
100
50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h
e c
MAP DAP TSP
Gelderman et al.
28 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 29/56
South Dakota- OatsEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow
106
89103
80
99 105
0
25
50
75
100
50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h e c
MAP DAP TSP
Gelderman et al.
7 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 30/56
South Dakota- OatsEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow
84
15
66
2
83
41
0
25
50
75
100
50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h
e c
MAP DAP TSP
Gelderman et al.
28 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 31/56
Influence of Psource and
temperature during
the initial soil-fertilizer reactionperiod on P uptake
by oat tops
Beaton and Read
CheckCheck DAPDAP MAPMAP MCPMCP1.01.0
2.02.0
3.03.0
P r e m o
v e d b y o a t t o p s , m g P / c u l t u r e
P r e m o
v e d b y o a t t o p s , m g P / c u l t u r e
55
16, 2716, 27
2727
1616
55
77
wkswks
1 wk1 wk
ooCCSaskatchewanSaskatchewan
pH=7.7pH=7.7
6.6% CaCO6.6% CaCO33
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 32/56
Rice
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 33/56
Arkansas- RiceEffect of P source on P tissue concentration- Broadcast
0.24 0.24 0.240.280.290.30
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
MAP DAP TSP
Fertilizer source
P t i s s u e c o n c e n t r a t i o n ,
Midtiller Panicle differentiation
Wilson et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 34/56
Arkansas- RiceEffect of P source on dry matter accumulation- Broadcast
616 626 639
2538 2584 2495
1421461430
1000
2000
3000
MAP DAP TSP
Fertilizer source
D r y m a t t e r a c c u m u l a t i o n ,
Midtiller Panicle differentiation Heading
Wilson et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 35/56
Arkansas- RiceYield response to various sources of P- Broadcast
146167 159
147160 155149
161 156
0
40
80
120
160
1996 1997 Average
R i c e y i e l d , b u
/
MAP DAP TSP
Wilson et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 36/56
Corn and soybean
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 37/56
Wisconsin- CornEffect of P source on corn yield- starter (2x2)
99117
108118 122 120120 123 121
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
1995 1996 Mean
C o r n y i e l d , b u /
No starter control MAP DAP
Rankin, M.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 38/56
Michigan- CornAverage response to various sources of P- Banded 2x2
125 127 120 123122
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
DAP MAP UP U+CSP AN+CSP
C o r n y i e l d , b u /
No significant difference among sources, LSD (.05)
Yerokun and Christenson
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 39/56
Illinois- CornEffect of P source on corn yield at multiple locations- In-furrow
111137
190165
186
133 134
188167
199
137114
182 170
201
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
Ashton Gridley Springfield Pana Oblong
Location (1993)
C o r n y i e l d ,
b u /
Control MAP DAP
Hoeft et al.
Based on 10 lb N rate
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 40/56
Minnesota- CornEffect of source (N), timing,
and rate on corn yield-Broadcast
Randall, G.
Study objectives:To determine theavailability of N tocorn from fall and
spring applied DAP,MAP, and AS
Parameter Yield
bu/ASource:
MAP 136.6
DAP 135.0
AS 137.7Time:
Fall 127.0
Spring 145.8
N rate:0 89.3
40 129.6
80 143.2
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 41/56
South Dakota- CornAverage effect of P source and rate on stand
across multiple locations- In-furrow
100 9991
8497 93
71
55
97 98 9683
0
25
50
75
100
12.5 25 50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c o n
t r
MAP DAP TSP
Gerwing et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 42/56
South Dakota- SoybeanAverage effect of P source and rate on stand
across multiple locations- In-furrow
67
41
184
59
37
12 6
74
51
27
14
0
25
50
75
100
12.5 25 50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c o
n t r o
MAP DAP TSP
Gerwing et al.
30 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 43/56
South Dakota- SoybeanAverage effect of P source and rate on stand
across multiple locations- In-furrow
9183
68
9082
60
9890 85
0
25
50
75
100
25 50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h e c
MAP DAP TSP
Gerwing et al.
7.5 inch rows
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 44/56
Michigan- SoybeansP source comparison- Banded to the side and below seed
51.8 53.0 53.0 52.651.1 54.0 53.0 52.7
0
20
40
60
1979 1980 1981 Average
S o y b e a n y i e l d ,
b u /
MAP DAP
Christenson, D.R.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 45/56
Sugar beet
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 46/56
Michigan- Sugar BeetsP source comparison- Banded to the side and below seed
25.4 25.4 25.1 25.325.3 25.4 24.8 25.2
0
10
20
30
1978 1979 1980 Average
S
u g a r b e e t y i e l d
, t o n /
MAP DAP
Christenson, D.R.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 47/56
Sunflower
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 48/56
South Dakota- SunflowerAverage effect of P source and rate on stand
across multiple site years- In-furrow
8778
62
43
86
71
42
18
96 94
76
50
0
25
50
75
100
12.5 25 50 100
P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A
S t a n d ,
%
o f c h e c
MAP DAP TSP
Gerwing et al., and Gelderman et al.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 49/56
Alfalfa
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 50/56
New Mexico- Alfalfa3 year average response to various sources of P- Broadcast
12.312.0
12.5
13.2 13.3 13.412.9
13.413.1
12.5
13.713.8
10
11
12
13
14
C h e c k A S O S
P T S P
A P S
M A P
D A P
A P P
U A P U P
A S - T S P - 1
A S - T S P - 2
O v e n d r y f o r a g e y i e l d ,
t o n / LSD (.05) 1.13
MAP and TSP > others
Cihacek, L.J.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 51/56
119 lb P2O5 /A/year
Available soil P: MAP =DAP
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Check MAP DAP APP
O l s e n P , p p
m Initial
1982
1983
1984
7 ppm critical value
New Mexico- AlfalfaEffect of P sources on soil test P- Broadcast
Cihacek, L.J.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 52/56
Summary
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 53/56
Practical summary
• The initially acid reaction zone (pH < 4) of MAPMAP:
– Helps prevent initial formation of toxic levels ofammonia
– Promotes precipitation of potentially favorablemetastable reaction products, especially in alkalinesoils.
– Increases potential P transport rate across root cellmembranes
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 54/56
Practical summary
• The initially alkaline reaction zone (pH > 8) ofDAPDAP:
– Increases potential for ammonia toxicity to seedsor seedlings; can be managed by limiting rateapplied in seed contact
– Results in precipitation of relatively insolubleapatite but also other potentially favorablemetastable reaction products, especially in acidsoils
– Solubilizes organic matter believed to increasemovement of P away from the granule site
– Reduces potential P transport rate across cellmembranes
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 55/56
Practical summary
• Differences in reaction zone characteristicsbetween MAP and DAP diminish with time …usually becoming minor within a month or two.
• The majority of field comparisons of MAP and
DAP in the published technical literature thatwere conducted using typical farmer practicesshow only minor yield differences, if any, due toP source effects.
• Recent development of new P fertilizers and
additives is increasing the number of field Psource comparisons in today’s farming systems.
8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mapvsdap 56/56
END
top related