United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes
National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-91-006B
GL-06B-91
&EPA
Agricultural IMPS Control of
Phosphorus in the New York
State, Lake Ontario Basin
Volume II — Fertilizer Trials on Organic
Soils in the Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was created because of increasing
public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and welfare
of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony
to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA was established in
Chicago, Illinois to provide specific focus on the water quality concerns of the Great
Lakes. The Section 108(a) Demonstration Grant Program of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-
500) is specific to the Great Lakes drainage basin and thus is administered by the Great
Lakes National Program Office.
Several demonstration projects within the Great Lakes drainage basin have been funded
as a result of Section 108(a). This report describes one such project supported by this
office to carry out our responsibility to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.
We hope the information and data contained herein will help planners and managers of
pollution control agencies to make better decisions in carrying forward their pollution
control responsibilities.
Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
EPA-905/9-91-006B
February 1991
AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL OF PHOSPHORUS IN THE
NEW YORK STATE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN
VOLUME 2. FERTILIZER TRIALS ON ORGANIC SOILS
IN THE LAKE ONTARIO DRAINAGE BASIN
by
Stuart D. Klausner
John M. Duxbury
Edward A. Goyette
Department of Agronomy
NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
R005725-01
Project Officer
Ralph G. Christensen
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
July, 1986
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National
Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES Ill
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
SECTION 1.
Introduction 1
Justification 1
Objective 2
SECTION 2.
Conclusions 3
SECTION 3.
Recommendations 4
SECTION 4.
Methods 5
SECTION 5.
Results and Discussion 10
Soil Analysis 10
Yield Response 10
Soil Test Correlation 16
Implications on Water Quality 21
REFERENCES 27
APPENDIX 28
-------
ABSTRACT
There are approximately 2.3 million hectares of cropland in New York.
Cultivated organic soils comprise about 12,000 hectares or 0.5% of the
total cropped land. The organic soils are used exclusively for intensive
vegetable production with onions being the primary crop. About 5Q% of
these soils are located within the Lake Ontario drainage basin. Unlike
their mineral soil counterpart, there is essentially no soil test correla-
tion data for use in estimating the fertilizer requirements of crops grown
on organic soils. Hence, growers apply fertilizer based on recommendations
that are not well correlated with crop response. The excessive use of
fertilizer, coupled with elevated nutrient levels in the soil will result
in poor nutrient utilization, an increase in nutrient enrichment of drain-
age water, and an economic loss to the farmer.
A comprehensive field study was conducted to evaluate the yield re-
sponse of onions across a broad range of N, P, and K fertilizer inputs and
to correlate the level of response with soil testing parameters. A primary
objective was to develop an estimate of P loss in drainage water to the
Lake Ontario drainage basin and how this loss is influenced by P fertilizer
management.
Two years of research data at 12 different locations showed that the
probability of obtaining a yield increase greater than 5% due to added N,
P, K, or micronutrient fertilizers occurred in 70, 43, 57, and 20 percent
of the cases, respectively. A first approximation of the soil test level
for P and K, above which a fertilizer response is unlikely, was 80 and 260
ppm, respectively.
Estimates of field losses of P to the Lake Ontario drainage basin in 40
cm of tile drainage water ranged from 8 to 19 kg/ha as the soil test P
level increased from 40 to 100 ppm. If average field losses were 16
kg/ha/year, then roughly 96 mt of P would be lost from cultivated organic
soils in the Lake Ontario drainage basin. However, this number may be
useless in estimating P loading into Lake Ontario because the transport
mechanism between the field and lake is not well understood.
Farmers would be eager to improve their fertilizer management if a
change would benefit them economically. Farmers are concerned about
environmental quality, and they would be willing to make sacrifices to
improve water quality even if a change could not be economically justified.
However, before changes are made they must be assured that a shift in
management will have a beneficial effect and others outside of the farming
community are sharing proportionately in the cost for improvement.
A concentrated research program will have to be maintained in order to
develop an adequate data base for determining economic fertilizer rates and
to define the transport mechanism of P movement in water courses.
i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Location of fertilizer demonstration trials, 1984-85 . . .
Response of onions to fertilizer P (0 vs 135 kg/ha PoOc)
at various soil test levels . .
Response of onions to fertilizer K (0 vs 67 kg/ha K20) at
various soil test levels , . .
Response of onions to fertilizer P (0 vs 135 kg/ha PO°C)
at various soil test levels, corrected for bulk density. .
Response of onions to fertilizer K (0 vs 67 kg/ha ICO) at
various soil test levels, corrected for bulk density . . .
Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil P and
water extractable soil P at the 0-25 cm depth, 1984. . . .
Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil P and
water extractable soil P at the 25-50 cm depth, 1984 . . .
Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil P and
water extractable soil P at the 50-90 cm depth, 1984 . . .
Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil test
Page
7
18
18
19
19
21
22
22
P between the 0-25 and 25-50 cm depths for all locations,
1984 23
10 Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil test
P between the 0-25 and 50-90 cm depths for all locations,
1984 23
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Experimental locations
Fertilizer treatments for 1984-85
Response of onion yield and grade to additions of N and
P205, 1984
Response of onion yield and grade to additions of ICO
and micronutrients, 1984
Response of onion yield and grade to additions of N and
P205, 1985
Response of onion yield and grade to additions of ICO
and micronutrients, 1985 .
Topsoil bulk density and organic matter content by
location, 1984
Soil test parameters measured before and after a
broadcasted P application, 1985
Yield and grade of onions as affected by P placement,
1985
Estimated annual leaching loss of P for organic soils .
Page
8
9
12
13
14
15
17
20
20
25
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was supported on Contract No. C 000741 from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation by funds from the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. We gratefully acknowledge the interest
and assistance received from Ralph Christensen and Kent Fuller of EPA and
Pat Longabucco and Mark Brown of NYS-DEC. The cooperation of agricultural
extension personnel for Oswego, Ontario, and Genesee/Orleans counties was
essential to the success of the project and we thank Dale Young, Carol
MacNeil, and Carole Rackowski for their enthusiastic help. Finally, we
thank the farmers involved in this project: Jim Ryan, Tony Sacheli, John
Coulter, the Jacobson Brothers, the Smith Brothers, Sam Palermo, Jim
Baldwin, and John Kasmer. We appreciated the use of their land and the
help they provided in establishing the experiments.
iv
-------
SECTION 1.
INTRODUCTION
Mew York State has approximately 240,000 hectares of organic soils,
12,000 of which are developed for intensive vegetable production. New York
vegetable production ranks favorably on the national level in production
and diversity as well as in its reputation to provide consumers with high
quality products. Recently, the farmers ability to remain competitive has
been challenged by economic and environmental constraints; namely, an
unfavorable ratio of production cost to product value and social pressures
for improved water quality from agricultural watersheds. Agricultural
scientists are equally challenged to develop crop production systems that
reduce input costs, increase yield and crop quality, and maintain environ-
mental compatibility.
One of our current interests is to increase the efficiency of nutrient
utilization by vegetables grown on organic soils. The traditional method
of applying fertilizer on these soils is to preplant broadcast all of the
N, P and K and foliar feed micronutrients where necessary. The rate of
application is usually not correlated with the probability of a crop
response. Growers adhere to this method of application because of famili-
arity and speed in getting the job done. The practice is not an efficient
way to manage plant nutrients, and farmers are reluctant to change unless
revised methods prove to be more cost effective.
JUSTIFICATION
Increased fertilizer efficiency on organic soils in the Lake Ontario
drainage basin would lead to: a) reduction in phosphorus discharges from
muckland into drainage waters, which eventually reach Lake Ontario; a prime
concern of the joint agreement between the U.S. and Canada; and b) reduced
inputs of N, P and K from fertilizer with less cost to the growers.
The excessive use of P is of special concern because leaching of P can
lead to a degradation of water quality in streams and lakes receiving
drainage water. Leaching of P from organic soils is several orders of
magnitude larger than that from mineral soils. The magnitude of P loss
from organic soils depends on the amounts of mineralization and fertiliza-
tion that has occurred, and on the ability of the soil to absorb P. The
farmer has little control over mineralization and soil absorption of P.
However, crop recovery of applied P can be markedly increased with improved
fertilizer management and result in reduced P discharges to the environ-
ment.
Several studies (Duxbury and Peverly, 1978; Erickson and Ellis, 1971;
Hortenstine and Forbes, 1972; Miller, 1979) have shown that P
-------
concentrations in drainage water from organic soils can approach 10 ppm,
with annual losses as high as 30 kg/ha. The magnitude of P loss from
organic soils is markedly influenced by the amount of fertilizer added, and
the ability of the soil to adsorb P. For soils with iron (Fe) plus alumi-
num (Al) less than 100 kg/ha (Cornell Soil Test) and with a constant rate
of P addition, the available P content of the soil adjusts itself to the
rate of fertilization, usually within 3 to 5 years. Iron plus Al control
the soil test P values of soils having a sum for these two elements greater
than 200 kg/ha. Leaching of P from organic soils is also related to their
Fe and Al content (Cogger and Duxbury, 1984).
A minimum safe level of soil-test P for vegetable crop production is
considered to be 50 kg/ha; however, the majority of cropped muck soils in
New York have values greater than 50. The relationship of the reserve P
supplying capacity of a soil to soil pH and to Fe plus Al content has not
been investigated and is part-of a research program currently being pro-
posed. The inorganic P content of eight soils from the Elba muckland
ranged from 35 to 60 percent of the total P (Cogger and Duxbury, 1984),
which indicates the importance of understanding how the inorganic pool
behaves with respect to P release.
Present fertilizer P additions are usually around 50 kg/ha (about 100
kg PoOg). Mineralization of soil organic P is in the range of 20 to 50
kg/her or P per year depending on the organic P content of the soil. Crop
removal of P is about 25 kg/ha for onions, so the sum of P added and that
mineralized is about three times that needed by the crop.
Although the primary focus of this study was directed towards P,
excessive additions of N and K can also lead to enrichment of drainage
water with these elements resulting in water degradation and an economical
loss to the farmer. Demonstration of optimal N, P, K, and micronutrient
applications is more likely to result in a lasting change in fertilizer
practices by farmers than a study focused on P alone.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research program was to ascertain the yield
response of onions across a broad range of N, P, and K inputs and to
correlate the level of response with soil testing parameters. A second
objective was to develop an estimate of P loss in drainage water to the
Lake Ontario drainage basin and how this loss is influenced by fertilizer P
management.
-------
SECTION 2.
CONCLUSIONS
At present, New York does not have a soil test correlation data base to
estimate nutrient requirements of crops grown on organic soils. Hence,
growers apply fertilizer based on recommendations that are not well corre-
lated with crop response. A high rate of fertilization, coupled with an
elevated nutrient level in the soil, will result in poor efficiencies in
nutrient utilization, an increase in nutrient discharge in drainage water,
and an economic loss to the grower.
This study showed that the probability of a yield increase (> 5%) due
to added N, P, K, or micronutrient fertilizers occurred in only 70, 43, 57,
and 20 percent of the cases, respectively. Excessive fertilization in
previous years, resulting in high nutrient levels in the soil, was respons-
ible for the low yield response level.
An important aspect of this research program was to begin to develop a
soil test correlation data base for formulating fertilizer recommendations
that are based on the most current research technology. A first approxima-
tion of the soil test level for P and K, above which a fertilizer response
is unlikely, was 80 and 260 ppm, respectively (160 and 520 kg/ha by the
Cornell soil test index). Fertilizer additions above these levels will
result in unwanted nutrient loss. Our estimate of P loss to the Lake
Ontario Drainage Basin for an average of 40 cm of drainage water ranged
from 8 to 19 kg/ha per year as the soil test P level increased from 40 to
100 ppm. Estimated P loss at the 80 ppm soil test P level was 16 kg/ha.
A rough estimate of P loss from the 6,000 hectares of cultivated
organic soils in the Ontario drainage basin is 96 mt (16 kg/ha x 6,000 ha).
Unfortunately, this number cannot be directly used for estimating P loading
into Lake Ontario because the effects of stream transport between the field
and lake on P loading and availability is not well understood.
-------
SECTION 3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the lack of historic data, the results of this two-year study
represent a relatively small sampling of a large population. With broad-
cast fertilization, our predicted loss of P from organic soils is high at
soil test P levels needed for maximum crop production and points to a need
for further research in the area of efficiency of fertilizer use. Critical
soil test levels, at which there is a low probability of a fertilizer
response, must be defined more accurately. Additional data may reveal that
a critical soil test level below the established 80 and 260 ppm for P and
K, respectively, may be acceptable.
Apart from rates of application, the timing and method of fertilizer
placement for enhancing nutrient recycling, across a broad spectrum of soil
test levels, needs further documentation. In particular, we believe that a
switch from broadcast to banded P application could lead to a substantial
reduction in subsoil P levels and P leaching, while maintaining sufficient
P in the surface soil for maximum crop production. It may, however, take a
3 to 5 year study to determine that this approach is having the desired
effect because of high soil test P levels throughout the soil profiles on
almost all of the muck farms in N.Y. On some farms where available P is
well buffered, it could take as long as 10 years to reach a new steady
state situation after a switch in fertilizer practice is made. Neverthe-
less, with sufficient data, appropriate management practices can be devised
to benefit the grower as well as receiving waters of the state.
A second major need is to adequately define the fate of soluble P after
it leaves the farm. All of the drainage water from organic soils in NY
State is subject to stream transport before it reaches Lake Ontario. The
effect of stream transport on the loading and bio-availability of P
reaching Lake Ontario must be established in order to assess the real
impact of a reduction in P loss from the farm or water quality in the lake.
An approximation of the cost of a research program to accomplish the
fertilizer management objectives is on the order of 1.0 to 1.5 million
dollars over the next ten years. Identifying nutrient transport phenomena
would likely cost at least as much. If it were well documented that the P
in drainage water from organic soils reaches Lake Ontario in bio-available
form the reduction in P loading to the lake by elimination of agricultural
use of much soils would be well known and unquestioned. By this statement,
we mean that essentially zero loss of P from muck soils would result if the
muck farms were abandoned and allowed to revert to natural wetlands which
were perpetually flooded. This could be accomplished, at least in part, by
1) paying farmers not to farm, or 2) development of programs to transfer
the muckland vegetable production to mineral soils where P losses would be
very much less.
-------
SECTION 4.
METHODS
Fourteen experimental sites were selected within the Lake Ontario
drainage basin. Figure 1 shows the approximate geographical location of
these areas and their proximity to the lake. Site selection was made on
the basis of obtaining as large a cross section in soil test P values as
possible. Secondary consideration was given to obtaining a range in soil
pH, K, Al, Fe, and Mn values.
In 1984, twelve of the fourteen sites were used. The following year
eleven sites were prepared, nine of which appeared in the exact physical
location as the previous year (Table 1). Two sites were lost each year due
to crop failures.
Ten fertilizer treatments were applied at each location and replicated
three times (Table 2). Nine of the fertilizer rates were designed primar-
ily to evaluate crop response to added P. Various rates of N,K and micro-
nutrients were applied to evaluate crop yields in the presence or absence
of fertilizer P. The tenth fertilizer treatment was the farmers rate and
thus varied with site. Farmers fertilizer rates are shown in Appendix
tables A7-A27. The rate of N shown in Table 2 was higher in 1984 than in
1985 due to the unusually wet weather that occurred after fertilization in
1984. It was felt that N losses due to leaching or denitrification during
this period may limit growth, hence, an additional 67 kg/ha N was applied
to most of the treatments as an early summer topdressing.
The procedure used to establish each experimental site each year
follows: After the field was tilled by the farmer, the experimental area
(41 x 18 m) was located from permanent reference points, and the individual
plots (4.6 x 6 m) staked. Soil samples were collected from the check, NK,
and NPK treatments at depths of 0-25, 25-50, and 50-90 cm. Each soil
sample by depth was a composite of four corings and replicated three times.
The fertilizer treatments (except the starter rate and micronutrients) were
applied by broadcasting. The farmer then broadcast his fertilizer over the
remainder of the field and planted onions over the entire field. Two of
the cooperating farmers inadvertently applied a summer topdressing of N
over our entire plot area. Therefore, some of the N rates in Appendix
tables A7-A27 may be different then the standard treatments shown in Table
2. The additional N did not affect our objectives since the primary
emphasis was on P.
After onion emergence, the starter fertilizer treatment was applied in
a band, placed 5 cm to the side of the row and 4 cm deep. The micronutri-
ent addition (Table 2) was made by injecting the appropriate solution in a
band approximately 5 cm to the side of the row and 2.5 cm deep. Sulfuric
-------
acid was added to the spray tank to ensure that the micronutrients remained
in solution. The final solution contained 0.1 N H^SO..
In 1985 an additional experiment (Table 1, location 15) was estab-
lished to focus more closely on the effect of P placement on onion yield in
the presence of adequate N and K. Three rates of broadcasted P were
applied prior to planting at rates of 0, 135 and 270 kg/ha of P20c- At tne
same time, 85 and 170 kg/ha of N and ICO, respectively were broadcasted
over all treatments. The plots were then harrowed and planted with onions.
Immediately after emergence, fertilizer P was applied in a band 5 cm to
the side of the row and 4 cm deep at a rate of 0, 22, 44, or 88 kg/ha of
P205 applied factorially over each broadcasted rate. An additional 85
kg/na of N was topdressed over all plots. The micronutrient mix described
in Table 2 (excluding Fe and Mn) was band applied to all treatments.
Soil samples taken from all locations were analyzed for pH, P, K, Ca,
Mg, Fe, Mn, and Al by adding 5 g of soil to 50 ml of a sodium-acetate
extract buffered at pH 4.8 (Greweling and Peech, 1965). Results were
reported in micrograms of nutrient per gram of soil (ppm on a weight
basis). Selected samples were analyzed in 1984 for boron (B) by hot water
extraction and P by water extraction. Bulk density samples were collected
from each location in 1984.
The farmers maintained normal cultural practices in the plot area in
terms of weed and insect control. Crop growth was monitored throughout the
growing season. 9.75 m of row (four rows 2.4 m long) was harvested from
each of the treatments. The harvested sample was graded, weight recorded,
and dry matter determined. Onion yields were adjusted to ten percent dry
matter. In 1984, yield included bulbs equal to or greater than 1.87 cm and
in 1985 yield was calculated to include bulbs measuring greater than or
equal to 4.2 cm in diameter.
-------
Locations 1,2,
Locations 4,5,6,11,14
Figure 1. Location of fertilizer demonstration trials,
1984-85.
-------
Table 1. Experimental locations.
Location
Nos.
Farm
Year(s)
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11*
12
14*
15
Grinell-West
Grinell-East
Sacheli
Coulter-Old
Jacobson
Jacobson-Bonocorsi
Kasmer
Smith
Palermo
Baldwin-Pops
Coulter-New
Baldwin-She! lar
Coulter-New
Coulter-P
84,85
84,85
84
84,85
84,85
84,85
84,85
84,85
84
84,85
84
84,85
85
85
Elba
Elba
Potter
Oswego
Oswego
Oswego
Elba
Elba
Potter
Elba
Oswego
Elba
Oswego
Oswego
*Newly cleared muckland locations 11
year of production, respectively.
and 14 were in the first and secona
-------
Table 2. Fertilizer treatments for 1984-85.
1984
Fertilizer rate, kg/ha
1985
Fertilizer rate, kg/ha
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
0
13
67E*
67L
0
67E + 67L
67E + 67L
67E + 67L
67E + 67L
Farmers Rate
P2°5 -
0
13
0
0
135
0
135
135
135
K20
0
13
0
0
67
67
0
67
67+M**
N
0
13 E
0
67E
0
67E
67E
67E
67E
Fanners
P2°5 -
0
13
0
0
135
0
135
135
135
Rate
K20
0
13
0
0
67
67
0
67
67+M**
*E = early, preplant L
**M = micronutrients in kg/ha
1. soil pH 5.8-6.3
2. soil pH < 5.8
3. soil pH > 6.3
late, onions a 4 cm tall
Fe=3, Mn=6, Cu=2, Mo=0.5, Zn=3, 8=0.1
Fe and Mn not added
Mn increased to 11
-------
SECTION 5.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SOIL ANALYSIS
The initial 1984 soil test levels at each location were generally
favorable for crop production with the exception of a low P value at site
11 in 1984 (Appendix tables A1-A3). Although our intent was to establish
fertilizer trials across a broad range of soil test levels, it was diffi-
cult to find areas with low nutrient levels because of the liberal amounts
of fertilizer applied by the fanners in the past.
The differences in the initial (1984) soil test values among plots at a
given site were small. This was expected since the soil samples were taken
prior to our fertilizer application and were essentially replicates.
Differences in soil test values between locations reflect the varying
fertilizer practices used by the cooperating farmers in the past. Soil
test values for soil samples collected in 1985 (Appendix tables A4-A6) did
not necessarily reflect the fertilizer treatments applied in 1984. This is
not surprising since soil testing does not usually detect short-term
changes but rather long-term trends, i.e., the soil has some capacity to
buffer nutrient levels in the short-term.
YIELD RESPONSE
Onion yields at each location are shown in Appendix tables A7-A16 for
1984, and in Appendix tables A17-A24 for 1985. These data can be used for
comparing yields and bulb size (grade) across a large range in fertilizer
rates. Specific crop response, as it relates to soil test levels, will be
discussed later.
The spring of 1984 was extremely wet, and farmers had difficulty
planting onions on time and in obtaining uniform stands. Due to the large
amount of variation experienced among all of the fertilizer treatments in
1984, only two of the 10 locations showed any significant response in yield
to changes in fertilizer rate (Appendix tables A7-A16). Significantly
greater yields were attained at location 10 from additions of nitrogen and
from a combination of N and P at location 11. At the latter location, the
quantity of non-marketable onions (less than 4.2 cm in diameter) was great-
est where no N was applied. This quantity dropped significantly with the
addition of as little as 13 kg/ha of N. Applied P at location 11, resulted
in more than a doubling in yield where adequate amounts of N were present.
The 1985 growing season by comparison was very good. However, consid-
erable variation in crop yield still existed between replicates of
10
-------
fertilizer treatments. Onion yield and grade were significantly influenced
by N, P, and K at 4 of the 8 locations (Appendix tables A17-A24).
A large cross-section of fertilizer rates were applied on soils that
had large differences in initial fertility levels. Therefore, it is not
surprising to experience a lot of variation in yield, particularly when
there are interactions between N, P, and K. A more appropriate method of
analyzing these data would be to focus on the effect that a particular
nutrient has on plant growth at various soil test levels. An understanding
of the relationship between crop response due to adding a nutrient and the
soil test level for that nutrient is important for developing fertilizer
recommendations that are economically and environmentally advantageous.
The response of onions to N, P, K, or micronutrient additions when the
element in question is accompanied by addition of an adequate amount of the
others, is presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 for 1984 and 1985, respec-
tively. The data in these tables are the singular effects of a nutrient
taken from the treatments in Appendix tables A7-A24.
At several locations, N was inadvertently applied as a summer topdress
over the plots by the farmer, hence, a zero rate of N is not always pre-
sent. In almost all cases, yield trend increased and the percentage of
small onions decreased at the higher N rate (Tables 3 to 6). However, this
increase was only significant in three of the 15 comparisons.
Calculations of the amount of N mineralized annually, based on long-
term subsidence rates leads to values in the range of 500-1000 kg/ha of N
depending upon soil subsidence rate and N content. This amount is far in
excess of crop uptake yet most crops, and all vegetable crops, grown on
muck soils in New York respond to N fertilizer additions because the
surface soil has been leached free of inorganic N early in the growing
season. Young seedlings, with limited root systems, are growing in a
volume of soil which contains very little inorganic N, hence the response
to fertilizer. As soils warm up and mineralization of soil organic N
proceeds, inorganic N accumulates to levels sufficient to sustain maximum
crop yield. In general, no crop response is seen in fertilizer N additions
made after mid-June. Even so, growers commonly topdress N on onions at the
end of June.
With reference to Tables 3 to 6, there was a significant response to
adding P in two of the 15 experiments. It is interesting to note that both
experiments occurred on the same farm (locations 11 and 14) and appeared on
a newly cleared soil. The probability of a yield or grade response was
generally greatest at the lower soil test P levels. For an unknown reason,
the yield at site 4 in 1984 was reduced when fertilizer P was added.
Adding K did not significantly increase yield at any of the locations.
The addition of micronutrients was responsible for a significant yield
increase in one of the 15 experiments. In general, most of the soils
studied have been treated with micronutrients in the past, therefore,
short-term residual effects may be preventing micronutrient responses where
one or more of these nutrients are normally required.
11
-------
Table 3. Response of onion yield and grade to additions of N and PpO,-, 1984.
Treatment ,
Location N-P^-K^1
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
0-135-67
135-135-67
78-135-67
212-135-67
0-135-67
135-135-67
28-135-67
162-135-67
0-135-67
135-135-67
0-135-67
135-135-67
0-135-67
135-135-67
N
Yield,
t/ha
45
46
72
71
39
40
33
36
28
41
15
41
57
59
.4
.8
.9
.1
.5
.2
.2
.0
.5*
.9
.8*
.2
.6
.5
Grade, %2
S M L
40
30
30
28
30
21
31
25
17
10
30
45
25
24
43*
61
62
63
60
69
55
66
73
78
5*
27
68
70
P2U5
Treatment , Soil Test,3 Yield
N-P205-K2(r ppm t/ha
PI
135-0-67 72
135-135-67
212-0-67 68
212-135-67
135-0-67 77
135-135-67
162-0-67 148
162-135-67
135-0-67 118
135-135-67
135-0-67 17
135-135-67
135-0-67 162
135-135-67
P2
4.7 60
46
3.4 63
71
5.5 37
40
6.9 35
36
6.9 39
41
0.6 19
41
8.3 61
59
.4*
.8
.2
.1
.7
.2
.3
.0
.5
.9
.5*
.2
.3
.5
, Grade, %
S M L
19*
30
30
28
26
21
33*
25
13
10
48
45
21
24
77*
61
61
63
63
69
56
65
79
78
8
27
73
70
Wha.
!:S = 4.0-5.0 cm; M » 5.0-7.3 cm; L = 7.3+ cm diameter,
JSoil test PI * NaAC extract; P2 = Water extract.
*Denotes a significant difference @ 5% level.
-------
Table 4. Response of onion yield and grade to additions of K90 and micronutrients,
1984. *
KpO Micronutrients
Treatment ,
Location N-P00C-K,,0
d D C
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
135-135-0
135-135-67
78-135-0
212-135-67
135-135-0
135-135-67
28-135-0
162-135-67
135-135-0
135-135-67
135-135-0
135-135-67
135-135-0
135-135-67
Soil test, Yield,
ppm t/ha
378 51
46
113 64
71
122 36
40
228 35
36
372 42
41
133 39
41
515 59
59
.3
.8
.0
.1
.9
.2
.9
.0
.0
.9
.0
.2
.5
.5
Grade, %2
S M L
28
30
31
28
23
21
29
25
7
10
52
45
22
24
62
61
59
63
68
69
57
65
77
78
18
27
70
70
Treatment3, Yield,
N~P2°5~K2 t/ha
135-135-67-M
135-135-67+M
212-135-67-M
212-135-67+M
135-135-67-M
135-135-67+M
162-135-67-M
162-135-67+M
135-135-67-M
135-135-67+M
135-135-67-M
135-135-67+M
135-135-67-M
135-135-67+M
46
55
71
71
40
40
36
36
41
44
19
46
59
51
.8
.7
.1
.1
.2
.8
.0
.5
.9*
.8
.5
.3
.5
.7
Grade, %
S M L
30
32
28*
38
21
23
25
29
10
11
45
46
24
23
61
61
63*
51
69
65
65
62
78
78
27
29
70
68
Ikg/ha.
p = 4.0-5.0 cm; M = 5.0-7.3 cm; L = 7.3+ cm diameter.
Without (-M) and with (+M) micronutrients.
*Denotes a significant difference & 5% level.
-------
Table 5. Response of onion yield and grade to additions of N and Po05. 1985.
Location
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
14
N
Treatment ,
28-135-67
95-135-67
28-135-67
95-135-67
0-135-67
67-135-67
45-135-67
112-135-67
45-135-67
112-135-67
0-135-67
67-135-67
0-135-67
67-135-67
0-135-67
67-135-67
Yield,
t/ha
28.2
32.9
76.2
32.3
72.1
82.1
56.1
59.1
56.3
67.1
54.7
64.4
37.5
36.9
37.3*
72.4
Grade, %2
S M L
52
44
53*
32
21
6
19
11
41
33
52*
42
62
51
55
22
48 -
55 -
47* -
66 2
77 2
78 16
81* -
89 -
59 -
67 -
48* -
58 -
38 -
49 -
45 0
77 1
P2°5
Treatment, Soil test, Yield
N-P205-K20' ppm • t/ha
95-0-67 103
95-135-67
95-0-67 117
95-135-67
67-0-67 90
67-135-67
112-0-67 76
112-135-67
112-0-67 38
112-135-67
67-0-67 137
67-135-67
67-0-67 59
67-135-67
67-0-67 78
67-135-67
36.2
32.9
32.4
32.3
87.9
82.1
61.7
59.1
55.5
67.1
63.3
64.4
36.8
36.9
61.0*
72.4
, Grade
S M
42
44
34
32
10
6
21*
11
45
32
36
42
50
51
27
22
58
55
65
66
87
78
79*
89
55
67
64
58
50
49
72
77
*L
:
1
2
3
16
-
-
-
-
1
1
Jkg/ha.
*•<; - A n t; n i-m- M — K n 7 1 r-m- 1 - 7 1-1. /-m ^-Samo-Ha*-
*Denotes a significant difference @ 5% level.
-------
Table 6. Response of onion yield and grade to additions of K00 and micronutrients
ions c.
1985.
K20 Micronutrients
Treatment ,
Location N-P.,0C-K«0
c. b L.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
14
95-135-0
95-135-67
95-135-0
95-135-67
67-135-0
67-135-67
112-135-0
112-135-67
67-135-0
67-135-67
67-135-0
67-135-67
67-135-0
67-135-67
67-135-0
67-135-67
Soil test, Yield,
ppm t/ha
186 26
32
193 31
32
285 82
82
226 56
59
200 63
67
260 59
64
73 27
36
413 59
72
.4
.9
.8
.3
.3
.1
.4
.1
.5
.1
.7
.5
.9
.9
.0
.4
Grade, %2
S M L
53
44
39
32
8
6
18*
11
33
33
45
42
55
51
25
22
46
55
59
66
89
78
82*
89
67
67
55
58
45
49
75
77
-
2
2
3
16
—
-
_
-
mt
-
_
-
0
1
Treatment3,
N-P205-K20]
95-135-67 -M
95-135-67+M
95-135-67-M
95-135-67+M
67-135-67-M
67-135-67+M
112-135-67-M
112-135-67+M
67-135-67-M
67-135-67+M
67-135-67-M
67-135-67+M
67-135-67-M
67-135-67+M
67-135-67-M
67-135-67+M
Yield,
t/ha
32.9
31.6
32.3
30.9
82.1
83.7
59.1
58.9
67.1
64.6
64.5
59.1
36.9
34.3
72.4
68.8
Grade, %
S M L
44
41
32
44
6
6
11
8
33
34
42
47
51
44
22
23
55
58
66
56
78
85
89
90
67
66
58
53
49
56
77
76
-
2
0
16
9
0
2
-
-
-
1
1
3S = 4.0-5.0 cm; M = 5.0-7.3 cm; L = 7.3+ cm diameter.
Without (-M) and with (+M) micronutrients.
*Denotes a significant difference @ 5% level.
-------
SOIL TEST CORRELATIONS
The major objective of soil test correlation studies is to determine
the critical soil test level where the addition of the nutrient produces a
crop response. Once this level is determined, with a reasonable degree of
confidence, the next step is to estimate how much of the nutrient should be
added if the soil test value is less than optimal. The amount added should
produce economical crop responses and be environmentally acceptable.
Figures 2 and 3 show the relationship between the soil test value for P
and K on check plots and the percent yield increase, due to the application
of P or K, expressed as a percent of the yield in the check plot. Using a
5 percent yield increase as an arbitrary baseline, a first approximation of
the critical soil test values for P and K, above which a crop response is
unlikely, is 80 and 260 ppm (ug/g), respectively.
Some refinement is needed in the way the critical level is determined.
This is obvious from the outlying data point in Figure 3. In 1985, the
yield at location 14 increased 23 percent due to adding fertilizer K at a
soil test value of 413 ppm; a contradiction to the previous stated critical
level of 260 ppm. The only unusual characteristic of the soil at this
location was its low bulk density due to being recently cleared for produc-
tion. Because muck soils can differ greatly in their bulk density (Table
7), a correction for the weight of soil in a given volume has to be made to
weight the soils evenly.
To convert parts per million from a weight per unit weight basis (ug/g)
to a weight per unit volume basis (ug/cm3) use equation (1) and the bulk
density measurements in Table 7.
ug/cm3 = ug/g * (BD/.33) (1)
where:
ug/cm3 = parts per million on a weight per unit volume basis
ug/g = parts per million on a weight per unit weight basis
BD = soil bulk density in gms/cm3
Using equation (1) to replot the data in Figures 2 and 3 showed that the
critical soil test level for P and K remained at 80 and 260 ppm (ug/cm3),
respectively. However, the outlying data point in Figure 3 fell in place
after correcting for bulk density (Figure 5). These critical levels should
be used with caution because of the limited amount of data used in their
development. The soil test values in ug/cm3 can be multiplied by 2 to
convert to an index used by the Cornell soil test laboratory, called Ib/ac.
A fertilizer rate experiment for P was established in 1985 to estimate
how much P should be added for optimal yield when soil test P was below the
critical level. A newly cleared muck soil, in its first year of production
was selected because of its low soil P level (location 15). Three rates of
P (0, 135, and 270 kg/ha of P20c) were applied as a preplant broadcast
application in an attempt to establish three soil test levels at the same
16
-------
location; the initial level plus two elevated levels. Different rates of
banded P (0, 22, 44, and 88 kg/ha of Pp°c) were superimposed over each rate
of broadcasted P in order to develop a response curve to banded P at each
soil test value. Soil samples were taken prior to the preplant broadcast P
application and about 10 weeks later, in mid-row to avoid band placed P, to
quantify the change in the soil test level.
Initially, soil test P was higher on the plots which would receive zero
P than on the ones which would be broadcast at the 135 and 270 kg rates
(Table 8). As expected, ten weeks later P decreased in the zero broadcast
treatment and increased at the higher broadcasted rates reflecting the
addition of P. Soil pH, Mg and Ca decreased with time but K increased at
the later sampling due to the application of 168 kg/ha of K^O just prior to
planting. Ironically, the higher initial soil test levels were associated
with the check treatment (zero broadcast P).
Yield response to broadcast and banded P is shown in Table 9. There
was essentially no relationship between yield and grade with rate and
placement of P. One would have expected a positive and consistent yield
increase to banded P at the two lower broadcasted P rates, in light of the
critical soil test level established earlier (80 ppm of P). There was
undoubtedly a lot of variation in this newly cleared soil perhaps due to
micro-environmental effects of past plant and animal life, tree and stump
removal, and land smoothing effects on soil mixing and compaction, but the
reasons for lack of response to banded P are uncertain.
Table 7. Topsoil bulk density and organic matter content by location,
1984.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
Location
Grinell-west
Grinell-east
Coulter-old
Jacobson
Jacobson-Bon
Kasmer
Smith
Baldwin-Pops
,14 Coulter-new
Bulk density
gm/cm3
0.44
0.41
0.28
0.31
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.49
0.20
Organic matter
%
72
78
84
83
83
81
84
75
90
17
-------
00
to
c
ro Yield Response, %
CO JL • _ _ K> KJ U C<1
• ouiouiocnoenoui
O -1
< 73
O> CD
-i »/>
o' o
C 3
n> _.
t/t o .
oo o
-j. -•>
O
rt- 3
n> -j.
10 O
Cl- 3
to KJ
— ' 8 '
n> c+ co °
< o o
fl> H-
— • -h M
i/> n>
• -J H
<-*• n>
-1* °> u
3! rr S .
N X
n>
-s
tr
^ OQ
o « fe.
< °
?r
<° 01
3^ S
OJ
71:
rv>
o
£ S
•
^
•
*
*
A ""
. r
1+
^
^ »
*
*
•^ o
ua
c
ro Yield Response, %
rvs - -
i»b »0£OCDOM
o o o o o o o o o
^ ^D ^^ '
tu (T>
~i t/>
-J.T3
0 0
C 3
(/» t/> K3 .
ro °
l»
0 0
-•• -h
~~'0 ^
f+ 3 5
CD -••
Irt O
r«- 3 ,„
V) J?
. o
I^T _!. H- O» .
n> «-»• Co
< o M
2.-H ^
!"» S
S n s •
§ € s-
-0 OQ ^
o
< »3 •
I/; °
to
en _
7^- 0
to
3"
01 __
r\3° °
0
en
(11 CO J
|
I
1
| „
'
I
1
i
i
*
* '
- ![*_>
|
^
j
1
i
*|
•1
1
I
n- °
-------
120
100
80
m
c ^
o
a.
w 40
* o
-20
-40
so
-H
100
—I—
ISO
200
250
Soil Test P, yg/cnf
Figure 4. Response of onions to fertilizer P (0 vs 135 kg/ha P?05) at
various soil test levels, corrected for bulk density?
35
30
t* 25
-------
Table 8. Soil test parameters measured before and after a broadcasted P
application, 1985.
Treatment
P205, kg/ha
0
135
270
broadcast - 0 band
broadcast - 0 band
broadcast - 0 band
Time
May 15
Aug 2
May 15
Aug 2
May 15
Aug 2
Soil Test Values, ppm
PH
5.7
5.1
5.6
5.2
5.5
5.2
P
57
37
31
69
35
97
K
210
316
170
313
137
250
Mg
1733
1387
1700
1380
1666
1326
Ca
8367
7300
7767
7133
7333
7200
84 and 168 kg/ha of N and KpO respectively, was applied shortly after the
May 15 sampling.
Table 9. Yield and grade of onions as affected by P placement, 1985.
P205, kg/ha
Broadcast Band
0
135
270
0
22
44
88
0
22
44
88
0
22
44
88
LSD1
Yield, t/ha1
50.5
46.0
41.9
55.7
avg. 48.5
58.2
50.9
59.1
47.4
avg. 53.9
42.6
42.4
47.9
47.2
avg. 45.0
ns
4-5 cm
27
31
31
29
27
30
32
27
42
30
25
27
ns
Grade,
5-7.3
72
69
69
71
73
70
68
73
58
70
75
72
ns
%
cm 7.3+ cm
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
ns
^Least significant difference @ 5% level, ns = not significant.
20
-------
IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY
Soil samples collected in 1984 were analyzed for both sodium acetate-
acetic acid (pH 4.8) extractable P (Cornell soil test extractant) and water
extractable P. The latter parameter has been shown by Cogger and Duxbury
(1984) to be a good indicator of ortho-phosphate P concentration in drain-
age water from muck soils at high flow, which is when most of the P is
leached from organic soils. Figures 6-8 show that the two extractable P
parameters are measurably well correlated with each other at each soil
depth (R2 values between 0.60 and 0.79). The linear regression equations
also show that the slope of the lines is very similar for all three soil
depths. Inspection of the graphs reveals that almost all the outlying data
points have values for water-extractable P lower than predicted by the
regression equations, and that more data points deviate at the deepest soil
depth. These patterns are obtained because sodium acetate-acetic acid
extracts more P than does HJ} from those soils that have one or more of the
following: 1) free CaCO-,^) high Fe and Al content, and 3) higher than
normal mineral content. We conclude, however, that soil test P is, in
general, a good predictor of the P leaching potential for soils and the
regression equations obtained can be used to estimate actual P concentra-
tions in drainage water. Soil test P values will overestimate P loss from
some soils but importantly, our evidence indicates that soil test P will
not underestimate P loss from organic soils.
60
P-.
U
CO
t-i
4J
X
at
a>
12
10
8
6
* 1-Grinnel wesl
o 2H3rlnnel east
• 4-Coullerold
D 5-Jacobsen
* 6-Jacobsen Bon.
A 7-Kasmer
* 8-Smilh
* 9-Palermo
" 10-Baldwin Pops
^ 11 -Coulter new
t> 12-BeldwlnShtlar
0 20
Figure
200
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Sodium acetate extract. F, pg/g
6. Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil F
and water extractable soil P at the 0-25 cm depth,
1984.
21
-------
00
3.
PU
u
0)
t-l
u
X
0)
0)
- -0.31 + 0.06 P.
4 2-Grlnnel east
0 4-Coull«r-pld
* Jacobsen
Q 6-Jacobsen Bon.
* 7-Kasmar
* 8-Smilh
x 9-Pslermo
* 10-BaldwinPops
" 11-Coullarnew
f 12-Baldwln Shelar
50 JOO 150 200
Sodium acetate extract. P, pg/g
250
Figure 7. Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil P
and water extractable soil P at the 25-50 cm depth,
1984.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 *-
u
H
- -0.81
2
0.05 P
v, .
NaAc
R: 80%
* 2-Grinneleast
0 4-Coull«ro!d
* 5-Jacobsen
a 6-Jacobsen Bon.
A 7-Kism«r
* 6-Smllh
X 9-pah)rmo
x \ 1-Coulter n«w
' 12-fialdwln Shalar
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sodium acetate extract. P, pg/g
160
Figure 8. Relationship between sodium acetate extractable soil P
and water extractable soil P at the 50-90 cm depth,
1984.
22
-------
00
to
o
>n
I
4-1
01
0)
H
O
Crt
250
200
20 40 60 80 tOO 120 140
Soil Test P (0-25 en), P8/g
160 J80 200
Figure 9. Relationship of sodium acetate extractable
soil test P between the 0-25 and 25-50 cm
depths for all locations, 1984.
40 60 80 100 120 MO 160 180 200
Soil Test P (0-25 cm ), pg/g
Figure 10. Relationship of sodium acetate extractable
soil test P between the 0-25 and 50-90 cm
depths for all locations, 1984.
23
-------
We also looked for trends of soil test P with depth on the assumption
that values lower in the profile may be more relevant to P leaching, but
found no consistent trend. For example, the values of soil test P for the
surface soil (0-25 cm) are plotted against those for the 25-50 cm depth in
Figure 9. Many of the soil samples deviated from the 1:1 line (Figure 9)
and values for the 25-50 cm depth could be similar to, higher, or lower
than those for the surface soil. Similar results were obtained with other
depth combinations (Figure 10). The lack of a consistent trend in soil
test P with depth is probably a reflection of both past and present ferti-
lizer use. The ideal situation for environmental quality would be to have
higher soil test P values in surface soil where most of the plant roots
are, and lower soil test P values in the subsoil.
Table 10 shows how soil test P data can be coupled with drainage water
yield to estimate annual leaching losses of P from organic soils. Our
experience in the Elba and Smith Lima areas (2 years) is that drainage
water yield is between 30-46 cm per year. If we widen this to 25-50 cm the
data in Table 10 predict annual P losses from 11-22 kg/ha of P at the
critical soil test P value for crop production (80 ppm). The predicted
losses of P are, of course, high (Table 10) and point to a need for further
research to:
1) Define the critical soil test level for broadcast fertilizer more
closely, i.e., is 80 ppm really the critical value or is it lower.
More data may reveal that a lower level is acceptable.
2) Determine rates of fertilizer use for banded P application. Since
banded P is used more efficiently we would expect to be able to reduce
fertilizer P applications considerably as well as background soil test
P levels. This would also mean that less fertilizer P is necessary to
maintain maximum economic production; hence, a reduction in leaching of
P. The lowering of extractable P in the subsoil is an important goal
as this would substantially lower P leaching.
For example, at our only low P site (No. 11 in 1984 and No. 14 in 1985)
on the Coulter farm, subsoil soil test P values were <10 ppm in 1984
and <20 ppm in 1985. Estimated P loss is 3.2 kg/ha at the 10 ppm soil
test P level and 50 cm of H?0, compared to 20.4 kg/ha at the 80 ppm
soil test P level.
3) Develop ways in which to reduce the amount of water draining from
organic soils. In some organic soil areas, there is lateral movement
of water derived from surrounding mineral soils, especially during the
spring months when all soils are generally saturated with water. Use
of perimeter ditches to divert this water would reduce P loss from
organic soils. It is also likely that the concentration of P in
drainage water is affected by the hydraulic properties of the soil,
i.e., by the rate and pathway of water movement through the soil. Soil
hydraulic properties can be influenced by management.
24
-------
Table 10. Estimated annual leaching loss of P for organic soils.
Soil test P
NaCHgCOOH, pH 4.8
Calculated P*
concentration in
drainage water
Estimated annual P loss for
various amounts of drainage
water (cm)
25
50
75
Tppmj
(ppm)
(kg/ha)
10
40
60
80
100
Calculated using regression
for surface soils.
0.6
2.1
3.1
4.1
5.1
p
equation H^O
1.6
5.3
7.8
10.3
12.9
* 0.136
3.2 4.8
10.5 15.8
15.7 23.5
20.4 30.9
25.8 38.6
+ 0.05 PNaAc obtained
Fertilizer Management
Due to the lack of an adequate soil test correlation data base for
organic soils in New York, farmers must base their fertilizer rates on past
experience or the experience of others. Our observations over the past
several years have been that fertilizer is generally applied in excess of
crop requirements. Additionally, fertilizer is applied inefficiently as a
preplant broadcast application in mid- to late-April which can lead to
excessive nutrient losses.
A study of fertilizer practices on mineral soils which minimize nutri-
ent loss by Bouldin et al., 1971, showed that peak stream-flow and the peak
quantity of nitrate N carried by stream-flow occurred in March with addi-
tional losses in April. The peak quantity of P carried'by stream-flow
occurred in April. Hence, fertilizer applications in excess of crop
requirements coupled with applications during peak soil drainage periods
result in undesirable nutrient loss, poor nutrient recovery by the crop,
and an added expense to the farmer.
Onion growers are not unique in the way they manage fertilizer nor
should they be singled out as poor stewards of the soil. Fertilizer
management on a vast majority of farms could be improved, particularly
livestock and poultry farms where nutrient surpluses are common. Currently
we are able to offer more definitive guidelines for fertilizer management
for mineral soils than for organic soils because historically, our research
emphasis has been directed towards the much larger mineral soil areas.
25
-------
Research data on mineral soils has shown that plant recovery of applied
nutrients (less nutrient loss) is increased when the majority of N is
applied after peak drainage periods in April and P is applied in a band in
close proximity of the seed at planting. For example, N is about 65% as
efficiently used when applied as a preplant broadcast application for corn
as compared to a post plant sidedress incorporation in late June. Approxi-
mately twice as much P is needed for corn (at low soil test P) when applied
as a preplant broadcast application as compared to band placement at
planting. Therefore, timing and placement of fertilizer in addition to the
rate can substantially influence nutrient loss.
Cooperative Extension has recently sponsored several meetings for onion
growers. The farmers were very interested in our findings and equally
receptive to our suggestions and recommendations. Growers will be eager to
change their fertilizer management program if the following two criteria
are met: 1) research data must show that the change will benefit the crop
and therefore, make them more money, and 2) the change will improve water
quality.
More research will be needed to develop an adequate data base to define
economic fertilizer rates and to define the transport mechanism of P
movement into Lake Ontario. Our research experience on mineral soils will
be helpful in developing interim fertilizer recommendations for organic
soils until the needed data is collected. The acceptability of a manage-
ment change by farmers will be a function of economics. The cost of
fertilizer is a very small percentage of the cost incurred in growing
onions. Fertilizer costs approximately 2 to 6 percent of the total. A
change in practice, i.e., reducing the rate of application to match the
crop requirement, may not change the economic picture very much. The
savings in fertilizer may be more than offset by the cost of additional
equipment for band placing fertilizer, reduced speed in getting the job
done during the critical planting period, and the added cost of multiple
fertilizer applications.
The primary unanswered question at this point is how much the P loading
into Lake Ontario would be reduced if growers improved their fertilizer
management. At present, this cannot be documented until researchers can
better understand the transport phenomena from the field to the lake.
Undoubtedly, an improvement in management will be beneficial to water
quality.
Since farmers are generally very conscientious and are concerned about
environmental quality they will be willing to do their part in improving
water quality even if they cannot justify it economically. However, before
this occurs they must be assured that a change in management will have a
beneficial effect and others outside of the farming community are sharing
proportionately in the cost for improvement.
26
-------
REFERENCES
Bouldin, D. R., W. S. Reid, and D. J. Lathwell. 1971. Fertilizer prac-
tices which minimize nutrient loss. hi: Proceedings of Cornell
University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management. Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca NY.
Cogger, G. and J. M. Duxbury. 1984. Factors affecting phosphorus losses
from cultivated organic soils. Dept. of Agronomy, Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca NY. Paper no. 1468.
Duxbury, J. M. and 0. H. Peverly. 1978. Nitrogen and phosphorus losses
from organic soils. J. Environ. Qua!. 7:566-570.
Erickson, A. E. and B. G. Ellis. 1971. The nutrient content of drainage
water from agricultural land. Michigan Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 31.
Greweling, T. and M. Peech. 1965. Chemical soil tests. Cornell Univ.
Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 960. Ithaca NY.
Hortenstine, C. C. and R. B. Forbes. 1972. Concentrations of nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, and total soluble salts in soil solution samples
from fertilized and unfertilized histosols. J. Environ. Qual. 1:446-
449.
Miller, M. H. 1979. Contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus to subsurface
drainage water from intensively cropped mineral and organic soils in
Ontario. J. Environ. Qual. 8:42-48.
27
-------
APPENDIX
28
-------
Table Al. Soil test values at each experimental location for the 0-25 cm
depth (1984).
Loca
tion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- Treat-
ment
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
Nutrient,
pH
6.7
6.3
6.0
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.4
Pi
84
80
80
101
105
102
85
93
87
72
80
90
68
70
71
53
41
47
107
90
97
77
70
74
148
138
148
118
113
105
17
13
19
162
110
92
P2
1.1
2.0
1.5
6.3
6.9
6.4
-
-
-
4.7
5.2
5.3
3.4
3.9
4.3
3.0
2.3
2.8
6.5
5.6
4.9
5.5
4.7
5.1
6.9
6.2
6.6
6.9
6.3
5.6
0.6
0.4
0.7
8.3
6.1
4.9
K
157
170
198
205
182
183
206
223
201
378
390
390
113
132
108
230
230
227
208
172
166
122
112
121
228
200
187
372
337
362
133
142
173
515
307
303
Mg
623
550
503
1046
1018
1045
910
940
847
1916
1800
1786
1043
983
926
1166
1150
917
1650
1600
1633
767
750
743
1033
1033
1000
773
747
800
1373
1350
1333
1050
1066
1066
Ca
29400
29700
19467
13600
13900
13233
12333
12000
12000
11073
10346
10420
10000
10333
10333
12000
12000
12333
15666
15000
15333
14333
14333
14000
16333
16333
16333
13333
13333
12667
10000
9766
9700
13533
13633
13033
ppm2
Mn
24
33
23
17
15
12
11
12
11
22
24
22
22
38
24
9
9
9
7
9
8
13
13
14
9
8
10
33
41
42
37
39
37
15
11
12
Fe
12
16
16
7
<5
n
6
<5
n
"
"
n
8
6
8
<5
11
11
n
11
n
11
"
11
6
5
7
14
14
13
6
10
10
<5
"
Al
20
25
26
20
20
19
23
21
21
13
18
13
46
43
39
13
17
13
9
8
9
11
10
11
9
10
11
22
24
22
5
7
7
9
9
9
Zn Cu
15 <1
15 "
14 "
7 "
8 "
7 "
3 "
7 "
3 "
8 "
4 "
5 "
11 "
12 "
12 "
4 "
4 "
4 »
6 "
6 "
6 "
13 "
12 "
13 "
5 "
5 "
5 "
21 "
22 "
21 "
3 "
4
5 "
8 "
8 "
8
B
2.0
2.8
3.9
1.9
2.7
2.9
2.3
2.3
4.6
3.4
2.0
2.1
pkg/ha of N-P?0,--K?0. Soil samples taken prior to fertilizer application.
PI = P extracted with NaAC, P2 = P extracted with water.
29
-------
Table A2. Soil test values at each experimental location for the 25-50 cm
depth (1984).
Loca
tion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- Treat-
ment
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
Nutrient, ppm
pH
„
--
__
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.1
4.8
4.9
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.2
PI
105
128
122
60
39
61
69
69
66
68
71
70
80
45
51
133
105
102
83
89
82
82
73
82
37
27
27
9
8
7
155
128
123
P2
7.0
7.3
7.7
-
-
_
3.6
3.9
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.0
3.0
5.1
5.2
5.6
6.5
6.3
6.8
2.7
2.2
2.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
9.4
7.9
7.5
K
206
230
223
161
110
143
193
227
235
111
175
133
128
99
88
181
168
163
95
102
87
98
86
92
197
137
138
80
92
136
225
152
133
Mg
1261
1173
1238
1066
1096
1050
2093
1993
1820
986
1056
843
1216
1116
1200
2333
1983
1983
983
1020
983
1200
1210
1200
750
700
733
1383
1366
1350
1350
1283
1233
Ca
14000
14066
14066
13000
13000
12667
10693
10233
11000
10666
10666
10333
12333
12000
12333
19333
15000
15333
13333
13667
13000
16667
16333
16000
11000
6333
9000
10000
10000
9667
13433
13500
13566
z
Mn
17
15
14
12
9
9
21
21
21
22
22
19
7
7
6
6
7
6
9
9
33
6
5
7
22
26
16
43
47
44
11
11
11
Fe
6
6
5
9
13
6
<5
ii
n
8
6
6
<5
n
n
1!
II
II
II
II
II
10
7
8
210
442
369
9
7
10
<5
n
n
AT
14
17
15
21
21
19
13
13
13
32
33
33
8
10
8
7
6
4
13
11
13
12
11
11
48
71
65
5
5
5
8
7
8
Zn
5
6
5
3
2
2
3
2
2
6
7
7
2
3
2
4
4
4
16
13
17
4
2
2
13
11
10
2
2
3
7
7
7
Cu
<1
n
n
n
11
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
ii
n
n
M
n
n
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
lkg/ha of N-P?Or-K?0. Soil samples taken prior to fertilizer application.
PI = P extracted With NaAC, P2 = P extracted with water.
30
-------
Table A3. Soil test values at each experimental location for the 50-90 cm
depth (1984).
Loca
tion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- Treat-
ment
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
0-0-0
135-0-67
135-135-67
Nutrient, ppm
PH
„
--
__
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.1
6.1
6.1
4.8
4.7
4.4
5.2
5.0
5.0
--
__
__
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
Pi
78
74
76
1
6
8
38
44
52
62
54
70
60
60
60
42
51
38
45
40
35
48
53
45
7
6
7
98
110
123
P2
1.2
1.7
1.5
-
-
_
1.7
1.6
2.5
3.4
3.9
4.2
3.4
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.8
0.9
0.8
1.7
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
4.6
6.4
7.8
K
146
170
175
67
52
54
180
208
225
99
118
91
54
52
76
101
83
77
88
110
65
62
53
59
42
46
51
156
114
128
Mg
1833
1766
1853
1626
1613
1650
1826
1730
1753
1116
1183
1027
973
1283
1417
1983
2173
2033
1050
920
850
1266
883
1183
1550
1433
1467
1800
1866
1700
Ca
13867
14333
15667
15667
15333
15000
12000
10606
10467
10666
10666
11333
13000
12333
13000
13000
13666
12000
9000
9000
7000
13333
12000
12000
11000
10700
10933
12633
13000
13000
2
Mn
8
6
6
9
6
12
26
23
25
25
35
19
7
8
7
5
6
5
13
16
11
8
9
10
43
42
41
7
8
9
Fe
11
11
6
7
6
<5
it
it
n
ii
n
H
n
n
n
n
n
M
140
130
170
28
33
33
<5
n
n
12
6
7
Al
8
9
8
14
12
28
9
7
10
11
13
14
4
6
4
13
10
10
36
37
52
17
18
19
5
5
4
12
8
11
Zn
5
3
2
2
1
2
6
9
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
24
21
17
17
14
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
11
12
Cu
<1
n
n
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
2kg/ha of N-P?Or-K?0. Soil samples taken prior to fertilizer application.
PI = P extracted with NaAC, P2 = P extracted with water.
31
-------
Table A4. Soil test values at each experimental location for the 0-25 cm
depth (1985).
Location
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
14
Treatment
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
Nutrient, j>pm
PH
6.9
6.5
6.1
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.4
6.2
6.2
6.0
P
87
103
92
112
117
117
96
90
110
81
76
82
50
38
51
157
137
150
66
59
72
123
117
120
69
78
63
K
186
246
223
193
193
200
285
255
285
226
270
273
200
183
197
260
177
207
73
83
77
303
253
347
413
400
320
Mg
567
450
417
967
900
1000
1850
1650
1650
1133
1133
1033
1366
1200
1200
1567
1533
1600
800
833
800
833
800
833
1700
1667
1733
Ca
37333
27000
21333
14000
13333
14000
12000
12000
12000
11667
11667
11333
14666
10100
14333
17666
17000
17667
14333
15333
14000
13333
13000
13000
11000
11000
10667
Zn
10
10
13
8
9
8
5
5
6
12
11
11
5
4
5
6
6
6
12
12
14
24
23
22
4
4
4
1
kg/ha of M-
Soil samples taken prior to fertilizer application.
32
-------
Table A5. Soil test values at each experimental location for the 25-50 cm
depth (1985).
Location
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
14
Treatment
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
Nutrient, £pm
PH
6.8
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.3
5.2
5.3
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.9
5.1
5.8
5.7
5.8
P
90
83
77
100
108
117
59
62
57
64
64
73
48
43
57
108
115
120
82
67
78
32
29
30
10
7
8
K
145
185
170
213
220
220
155
170
155
127
160
173
80
80
87
140
140
150
90
77
80
123
103
153
147
107
440
Mg
450
425
400
1133
1100
1233
1900
1650
1450
1100
1233
1033
1100
1133
1067
1866
1966
1966
933
1000
900
766
667
767
1700
1733
1867
Ca
24500
16500
15000
14333
14333
15000
12000
11500
12000
12333
12000
12000
13667
13667
9433
17000
17333
18000
13333
12333
11667
9500
8500
8633
10633
11000
11000
Zn
8
11
9
5
6
5
1
1
5
4
4
6
2
2
1
4
5
4
16
17
17
10
10
11
<1
n
H
1
kg/ha of N
Soil samples taken prior to fertilizer application
33
-------
Table A6. Soil test values at each experimental location for the 50-96 cm
depth (1985).
Location
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
14
Treatment
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
0-0-0
67-0-67
67-135-67
Nutrient, ppm
PH
„
--
—
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.9
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.4
5.4
5.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
5.0
4.7
4.7
_M
--
—
5.9
5.9
5.9
P
91
84
88
49
38
47
55
63
66
49
49
71
53
57
74
38
47
49
16
11
20
K
193
200
223
195
190
215
140
217
190
99
97
133
103
97
100
70
80
67
160
113
163
Mg
1366
1533
1500
1550
1350
1400
1233
1166
1133
1433
1333
1267
2066
2167
2200
1033
900
833
1600
1667
1767
Ca
14666
14000
14333
12000
11500
12000
12000
11666
12333
15333
14000
14333
14667
16000
15667
8300
9500
7267
10666
11000
11000
Zn
5
4
4
1
1
2
3
4
4
2
2
2
15
13
14
13
13
11
<1
H
it
'kg/ha of N-P-Oc-KpO. Soil samples taken prior to fertilizer application.
34
-------
Table A7. 1984 Onion yields. Location 2, Grinell-East.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20 & M
90L-0-0
13E.90L-13-13
67E.90L-0-0
157L-0-0
90L-135-67
67E.157L-0-67
67E.157L-135-0
67E.157L-135-67
67E.157L-135-67+M
Farm
135E.90L-135-135
LSD
Yield
t/ha
9.9
13.4
9.4
7.4
10.5
7.8
13.6
7.3
7.4
12.3
ns
Grade, %
2-4 cm
25
9
5
3
20
2
3
2
8
3
8
4-5 cm
38
23
15
12
37
14
8
7
17
9
13
5-7.3 cm
37
68
73
75
43
83
84
82
75
87
19
7.3+ cm
0
0
7
10
0
1
5
9
0
1
0
1
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
35
-------
Table A8. 1984 Onion yields. Location 4, Coulter-Old.
Fertilizer, kg/ha1
N-P205-K-20 & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Farm
135-135-135+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
48.2
54.9
53.7
56.1
45.4
60.4
51.3
46.8
55.7
56.3
ns
Grade, %
2-4 cm
12
8
6
6
17
5
10
9
7
6
5
4-5 cm
33
34
26
25
40
19
28
30
31
25
11
5-7.3 cm
55
58
67
69
43
76
62
61
61
69
15
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
36
-------
Table A9. 1984 Onion yields. Location 5, Jacobson.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2° & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Farm
90E.78L-50-226
LSD
Yield
t/ha
68.2
67.9
76.0
73.3
73.0
63.2
63.9
71.1
71.3
72.1
ns
Grade, %
2-4 cm
10
11
10
8
8
9
10
9
10
9
ns
4-5 cm
36
34
34
32
30
30
31
28
38
33
ns
5-7.3 cm
54
55
56
59
62
61
59
63
51
58
ns
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
37
-------
Table A10. 1984 Onion yields. Location 6, Jacobson-Bonocorsi.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2° & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
E Farm
84E.73L-84-168
LSD
Yield
t/ha
50.6
44.7
56.3
57.2
54.8
58.7
57.0
--
54.3
56.5
ns
Grade, %
2-4 cm
20
20
15
15
19
14
15
_
14
14
ns
4-5 cm
43
43
48
51
49
49
40
_
45
42
ns
5-7.3 cm
37
37
37
33
32
37
45
_
41
44
ns
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD s least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
38
-------
Table All. 1984 Onion yields. Location 7, Kasmer.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2° & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Farm
179E-179-179+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
45.7
47.2
32.8
33.5
53.8
38.8
45.9
35.3
45.1
54.4
ns
Grade, %
2-4 cm
6
6
3
3
7
1
3
2
1
2
3
4-5 cm
10
12
5
12
16
3
7
7
3
9
ns
5-7.3 cm
64
67
62
85
75
55
56
46
62
83
ns
7.3+ cm
20
15
30
0
2
41
34
45
34
6
ns
1
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
39
-------
Table A12. 1984 Onion yields. Location 8, Smith.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2° & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Yield
t/ha
40.8
37.0
41.5
36.6
39.5
37.7
36.9
40.1
40.8
2-4 cm
10
9
11
10
9
9
8
8
6
Grade,
4-5 cm
31
32
30
27
30
26
23
21
23
, %
5-7.3 cm
57
57
57
62
60
63
68
69
65
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
Farm
135E-90-179+M
LSD
43.8
ns
7
ns
21
ns
70
ns
0
ns
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
40
-------
Table A13. 1984 Onion yields. Location 9, Palermo.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20 & M
28L-0-0
13E+28L-13-13
67E+28L-0-0
95L-0-0
28L-0-135
67E+95L-0-67
67E+95L-135-0
67E+95L-135-67
67E+95L-135-67+M
Yield
t/ha
42.0
32.8
37.0
32.4
33.3
35.3
35.9
36.0
36.5
Grade, %
2-4 cm
9
6
7
10
12
9
11
8
8
4-5 cm
35
22
31
27
31
33
29
25
29
5-7.3 cm
55
70
62
50
55
56
57
65
62
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Farm
84E+28L-118-135
LSD
40.4
ns
11
ns
27
ns
61
ns
1
ns
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
41
-------
Table A14. 1984 Onion yields. Location 10, Baldwin-Pops.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2° & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Farm
112E-112-168
LSD
Yield
t/ha
27.9
29.2
32.2
38.4
28.5
39.5
42.0
41.9
44.8
39.9
8.3
Grade, %
2-4 cm
4
5
3
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
ns
4-5 cm
13
23
13
15
17
13
7
10
11
11
ns
5-7.3 cm
74
69
75
77
73
79
77
78
78
76
ns
7.3+ cm
9
3
9
6
6
6
14
9
8
10
ns
1
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M c micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
42
-------
Table A15. 1984 Onion yields. Location 11, Coulter-New.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20 & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Farm
157E-151-151+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
4.7
22.1
31.2
7.7
15.8
19.5
39.0
41.2
46.3
46.9
24.0
Grade, %
2-4 cm
92
33
60
52
65
44
30
28
25
25
32
4-5 cm
8
61
30
31
27
48
52
45
46
31
21
5-7.3 cm
0
6
102
17
5
8
17
27
29
43
ns
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E - early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
43
-------
Table A16. 1984 Onion yields. Location 12, Baldwin-Shellar.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2° & M
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
67L-0-0
0-135-67
67E+67L-0-67
67E+67L-135-0
67E+67L-135-67
67E+67L-135-67+M
Perm
112E-112-168
LSD
Yield
t/ha
58.4
56.0
60.8
60.7
57.6
61.3
59.2
59.5
51.7
61.5
ns
Grade, %
2-4 cm
5
7
5
6
6
5
6
5
7
5
ns
4-5 cm
23
18
18
25
25
21
22
24
23
19
ns
5-7.3 cm
71
73
74
68
68
73
70
70
68
74
ns
7.3+ cm
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
ns
1
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
44
-------
Table A17. 1985 Onion yields. Location 1, Gn'nell-West.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20
28L-0-0
13E.28L-13-13
67E.28L-0-0
28L-135-67
67E,28L-0-67
67E.28L-135-0
67E.28L-135-67
67E.28L-135-67+M
Farm
135E,28L-135-135
LSD
Yield
t/ha
28.1
35.2
34.5
28.2
36.3
26.4
32.9
31.6
37.9
ns
4-5 cm
47
43
47
52
42
54
44
41
40
ns
Grade, %
5-7.3 cm
53
56
53
48
58
46
56
59
60
ns
7.3+ cm
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
45
-------
Table A18. 1985 Onion yields. Location 2, Grinell-East.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
28L-0-0
13E.28L-13-13
67E.28L-0-0
28L-135-67
67E.28L-0-67
67E.28L-135-Q
67E.28L-135-67
67E,28L-135-67+M
Yield
t/ha
19.2
24.5
27.0
26.2
32.4
31.8
32.3
31.0
4-5 cm
54
54
40
53
34
40
32
44
Grade, %
5-7.3 cm
46
46
59
47
65
58
66
56
7.3+ cm
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
Farm
135E.28L-135-135 37.9 36 64 0
LSD ns ns ns ns
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
46
-------
Table A19. 1985 Onion yields. Location 4, Coulter-Old.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
0-135-67
67E-0-67
67E-135-0
67E-135-67
67E-135-67+M
Farm
151E-151-151+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
80.5
57.6
83.6
72.1
87.9
84.9
82.1
83.7
85.7
15.9
4-5 cm
12
8
9
20
10
8
6
6
8
ns
Grade, %
5-7.3 cm
85
72
88
78
87
89
78
85
89
10
7.3+ cm
3
19
3
2
3
3
16
9
3
ns
E = early (preplant), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
47
-------
Table A20. 1985 Onion yields. Location 5, Jacobson.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2°
45L-0-0
13E.45L-13-13
67E.45L-0-0
45L-135-67
67E.45L-0-67
67E.45L-135-0
67E.45L-135-67
67E.45L-135-67+M
Farm
112E.45L-112-112
LSD
Yield
t/ha
56.9
--
54.3
55.9
61.7
56.5
59.0
—
59.9
ns
4-5 cm
27
--
17
20
21
18
11
—
16
4
Grade, %
5.0-7.3 cm
73
--
83
80
79
82
89
--
84
4
7.3+ cm
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
E = early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
48
-------
Table A21. 1985 Onion yields. Location 6, Jacobson-Bonocorsi.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20
45L-0-0
13E.45L-13-13
67E.45L-0-0
45L-135-67
67E.45L-0-67
67E,45L-135-0
67E.45L-135-67
67E.45L-135-67+M
Farm
112E.45L-112-112
LSD
Yield
t/ha
45.3
57.2
49.1
56.3
55.5
63.5
67.1
64.4
61.4
10.3
4-5 cm
48
38
44
41
45
33
33
34
30
12
Grade, %
5.0-7.3 cm
52
62
56
59
55
67
67
66
70
12
7.3+ cm
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
ns
E "= early (preplant), L = late (summer topdress), M = micronutrients,
LSD - least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
49
-------
Table A22. 1985 Onion yields. Location 7, Kasmer.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N"P2°5"K2°
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
0-135-67
67E-0-67
67E-135-0
67E-135-67
67E-135-67+M
Farm
168E-168-168+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
65.5
60.4
59.0
54.7
63.4
59.7
64.5
59.1
63.0
ns
4-5 cm
42
50
37
52
36
45
42
47
43
ns
Grade, %
5.0-7.3 cm
58
50
63
48
64
55
58
' 53
57
ns
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ns
1
E = early (preplant), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
50
-------
Table A23. 1985 Onion yields. Location 8, Smith.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
0-135-67
67E-0-67
67E-135-0
67E-135-67
67E-135-67+M
Farm
135E-90-179+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
30.4
24.8
28.3
37.5
36.8
27.9
36.9
34.3
53.7
14.4
4-5 cm
69
75
63
62
50
55
51
—
28
ns
Grade, %
5.0-7.3 cm
31
25
37
38
50
45
49
--
72
29
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
ns
1
E = early (preplant), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
51
-------
Table A24. 1985 Onion yields. Location 14, Coulter-New.
Fertilizer, kg/ha
N-P205-K20
0-0-0
13E-13-13
67E-0-0
0-135-67
67E-0-67
67E-135-0
67E-135-67
67E-135-67+M
Farm
9QE-9Q-270+M
LSD
Yield
t/ha
27.1
35.8
56.3
37.3
61.0
59.0
72.5
68.8
75.0
21.9
4-5 cm
62
55
33
55
27
25
22
23
10
21
Grade, %
5.0-7.3 cm
38
45
67
45
72
75
77
76
87
21
7.3+ cm
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
1
1
E - early (preplant), M = micronutrients,
LSD = least significant difference, ns= not significant @ 5%.
U.S. Government Printing Office 1991 - 281-724/43564
52
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-91-006B
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
i
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control of Phosphorus in the New York State
Lake Ontario Basin
Volume II- Fertilizer Trials on Organic Soils in the Lake Ontario
Drainage Basin.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Stuart Klausner
John Duxbury
Edward Goyette
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Agronomy
NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
A42B2A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R005725
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final-1985-1986
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
GLNPO
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ralph Christensen, USEPA Project Officer
John Lowrey, Technical Assistant
16. ABSTRACT
There are approximately 2.3 million hectares of cropland in New York. Cultivated organic soils comprise about 12,000 hectares or 0.5% of the total cropped land.
The organic soils are used exclusively for intensive vegetable production with onions being Ihe primary crop. About 50% of these soils are located within the Lake
Ontario drainage basin. Unlike their mineral soil counterpart, there is essentially no soil test correlation data for use in estimating the fertilizer requirements of crops
grown on organic soils. Hence, growers apply fertilizer based on recommendations that are not well correlated with crop response. The excessive use of fertilizer,
coupled with elevated nutrient levels in the soil will result in poor niutrient utilization, an increase in nutrient enrichment of drainage water, and an economic loss to the
farmer.
A comprehensive field study was conducted to evaluate the yield response of onions across a broad range of N, P, and K fertilizer inputs and to correlate the level
of response with soil testing parametes. A primary objective was to develop an estimate of P loss in drainage water to the Lake Ontario drainage basin and how this
loss is influenced by P fertilizer management.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTIONS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field Group
Tillage Organic Soil
Phosphorus Mucklands
Nitrogen Cropland
Nutrients Potassium
Water Quality Sediment
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEME1
Document available to the p
Technical Information Servi
Springfield, VA 22161
MT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
ublic through the National None 62
PP NTT S
^, ^^^ 2Q SECURITY CLASS fujs page) 22. PRICE
None
------- |