Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15336
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcMaster, Colin-
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-25T23:13:43Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-25T23:13:43Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.issn2652-6948-
dc.identifier.urihttps://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15336-
dc.description.abstractKey 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.publisherDepartment of Primary Industriesen
dc.subject2009, 2012, canola, grain yield, grey vertosol, Gunningbland, MAP, phosphorus, wheaten
dc.titlePhosphate fertiliser source—Gunningbland NSW 2009 to 2012en
dc.title.alternativeSouthern NSW research results 2014en
dc.typeBook chapteren
Appears in Collections:DPI Agriculture - Southern and Northern Research Results [2011-present]

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
SRR14-4 McMaster phosphate fertiliser source-+.pdf231.09 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing