Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T07:29:10.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field experiments comparing ammonium nitrate and urea top-dressing for winter cereals and grassland in the U.K.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. Chaney  and
G. A. Paulson
K. Chaney
Affiliation:
Norsk Hydro Fertilizers Ltd, Levington Research Station, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP10 OLU
G. A. Paulson
Affiliation:
Norsk Hydro Fertilizers Ltd, Levington Research Station, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP10 OLU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The results of 173 field experiments carried out between 1957 and 1986 are presented comparing ammonium nitrate and urea as top-dressings for winter cereals and grassland.

The trials show that urea was an inferior nitrogen source to ammonium nitrate. The yield from ammonium nitrate was significantly greater than that from urea for winter wheat, winter barley and for first, second and third cut silage. The results suggest (a) that winter wheat and winter barley respond differently to the two nitrogen sources and (b) that yield losses from urea are just as likely on first cut silage as second or third cut.

A breakdown of results according to soil texture, soil pH and region showed no consistent differences in yield loss. This indicates that broad generalizations based on soil characters and geographical location are not helpful in distinguishing situations where urea performance may be either better or worse than average.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 285 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chaney, K. (1987). Ammonium nitrate or urea for grassland. Grass Farmer No. 27, 18, 19 and 30.Google Scholar
Devine, J. R. & Holmes, M. R. J. (1963 a). Field experiments comparing ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate and urea applied repetitively to grassland. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 60, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, J. R. & Holmes, M. J. R. (1963 b). Field experiments on the value of urea as a fertilizer for barley, sugar beet, potatoes, winter wheat and grassland in Great Britain. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 61, 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, J. R. & Holmes, M. R. J. (1965). Field experiments comparing winter and spring applications of ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate and urea to grassland. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 4, 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, J. K. R. (1964). Urea as a fertilizer. Soils and Fertilizers 27, 175–180.Google Scholar
Murphy, W. E. (1983). Comparing urea and CAN at different locations. Farm and Food Research, April 1983, 41–42.Google Scholar
Rodgers, G. A., Penny, A. & Hewitt, M. V. (1986). A comparison of the effects of prilled urea, used alone or with a nitrification inhibitor, with those of ‘Nitro-Chalk’ on winter oil-seed rape. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryden, J. C, Lockyer, D. R. & Bristow, A. W. (1985). Gaseous losses from fertilizer nitrogen applied in late winter. Annual Report of the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, 1984–5, p. 18.Google Scholar
Swift, G., Cleland, A. T. & Franklin, M. F. (1988). A comparison of nitrogen fertilizers for spring and summer grass production. Grass and Forage Science (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, T. E. (1970). Urea – agronomic applications. Proceedings of the Fertiliser Society No. 13, 1–52.Google Scholar
Van Burg, P. F. J., Dilz, K. & Prins, W. H. (1982). Agricultural value of various nitrogen fertilizers. Netherlands Nitrogen Technical Bulletin No. 13.Google Scholar