English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

After the spike in natural gas price in the winter of 2000-2001 the price of natural gas and N fertilizers have fl uctuated, but remained above previous historic levels. Seasonal trends have also resulted in both N product availability and high cost issues, including this fall. Recently, similar problems have hit phosphate and potash fertilizers where world demand and production problems (hurricanes affecting phosphate production in Florida) have negatively affected product price and supply in the United States. With these trends, are there fertilizer use practices that should change, or does crop response to fertilization pay no matter the cost? Crop nutrient applications should be determined by evaluating expected return from each input. If allocation is required due to limited product availability, product price, or available fi nancial resources, then decisions about fertilizer use should also be judged against other crop production needs, enterprise requirements, and overall farm business goals. Considering all potential inputs for producing crops, the focus should be on garnering optimum positive return. Following is information to help guide fertilization decisions when prices are high or product availability is short. Nitrogen Fertilization Corn is quite responsive to N supply and thus management is critical for profi table production. Of importance is setting an economical application rate and adjusting total N inputs by accounting for N available from all sources -- rotation following alfalfa and soybean, manure, byproducts, and secondary fertilizers like weed-and-feed, starter, and ammoniated phosphates. These sources can supply signifi cant amounts of crop available N, and if properly accounted for and managed, will greatly lower overall primary fertilizer N application and cost. Timing of application is important to help assure that applied N remains in the soil for crop use. Also, risk of N loss and thus potential for reduced yield becomes more important when refi ning to optimal or perhaps less than optimal rates. Therefore, practices should be avoided that enhance buildup of soil nitrate at times when losses are most probable. In Iowa, most nitrate leaching occurs in the early spring period and denitrifi cation in the later spring. Spring preplant application close to planting or sidedress typically provides the least risk from loss – although if weather and soil conditions are favorable, late fall application can be comparable but risk and probability of loss increases because of the increased time applied N is exposed to the environment. An example of the specifi c environmental effect on N loss was demonstrated in work by Baker et al. (1995) where they applied N from fall to late sidedress (Table 1). In a dry year, corn yield with fall application was not different from early spring and both were better than with late spring. In a wet year, mid-May to late spring application had higher yield. If primary N fertilizer applications must be made in the fall, they should be targeted to soils and

With High Fertilizer Prices is it Business as Usual or Should Fertilization Practices Change?