Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15336
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | McMaster, Colin | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-09-25T23:13:43Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-09-25T23:13:43Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2652-6948 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15336 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Key findings • High-analysis granular fertiliser (MAP) was the most profitable P source. • Liquid forms of P performed well, but high purchase price reduced profitability. • Rock phosphate did not improve grain yield (averaged over three years) or residual soil P. • Additional biological inoculants applied to rock phosphate did not significantly improve response greater than MAP. • Consider long-term implication of P fertiliser source and application rate. If P rates are reduced, the residual soil P benefit will also be reduced. • Growing season rainfall will impact crop response to freshly applied P. • Growers must consider fertiliser effectiveness and cost ($ per unit of P) when considering P fertiliser source. • It was more profitable to apply no fertiliser than apply rock phosphate. | en |
dc.publisher | Department of Primary Industries | en |
dc.subject | 2009, 2012, canola, grain yield, grey vertosol, Gunningbland, MAP, phosphorus, wheat | en |
dc.title | Phosphate fertiliser source—Gunningbland NSW 2009 to 2012 | en |
dc.title.alternative | Southern NSW research results 2014 | en |
dc.type | Book chapter | en |
Appears in Collections: | DPI Agriculture - Southern and Northern Research Results [2011-present] |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SRR14-4 McMaster phosphate fertiliser source-+.pdf | 231.09 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.