mapvsdap

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


MAP and DAPfield comparisons

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


Wheat

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


45.351.0 49.7 52.3

23.8

35.8 37.433.3

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


Montana- Winter WheatYield as affected by P source, rate (N), and soil- In-furrow

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30


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


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


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


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


S t a n d ,

%

o f c h e

c

MAP DAP TSP

Gelderman et al.

28 inch rows

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


Barley and oat

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


Montana- BarleyStand density as affected by P source and rate (N)

(year one)- In-furrow

40

50

60

70

10 20 30


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


Montana- BarleyCulm density as affected by P source and rate (N)

(year one)- In-furrow

150

175

200

225

250

10 20 30


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


Montana- BarleyCulm density as affected by P source and rate (N)

(year two)- In-furrow

290

310

330

350

370

10 20 30 40


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


South Dakota- BarleyEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

8879

86

56

8672

0

25

50

75

100

50 100


S t a n d ,

%

o f c h

e c

MAP DAP TSP

Gelderman et al.

7 inch rows

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


South Dakota- BarleyEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

76

3830

4

72

18

0

25

50

75

100

50 100


S t a n d ,

%

o f c h

e c

MAP DAP TSP

Gelderman et al.

28 inch rows

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


South Dakota- OatsEffect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

106

89103

80

99 105

0

25

50

75

100

50 100


S t a n d ,

%

o f c h e c

MAP DAP TSP

Gelderman et al.

7 inch rows

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


S t a n d ,

%

o f c h

e c

MAP DAP TSP

Gelderman et al.

28 inch rows

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


Rice

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


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


Corn and soybean

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


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


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


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


S t a n d ,

%

o f c o n

t r

MAP DAP TSP

Gerwing et al.

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


South Dakota- SoybeanAverage effect of P source and rate on stand


67

41

184

59

37

12 6

74

51

27

14

0

25

50

75

100

12.5 25 50 100


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


South Dakota- SoybeanAverage effect of P source and rate on stand


9183

68

9082

60

9890 85

0

25

50

75

100

25 50 100


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


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


Sugar beet

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


Sunflower

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


Alfalfa

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


Summary

8/4/2019 MAPvsDAP


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


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


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


END

mapvsdap

Documents