Evaluation of ESN Fertilizer in

Southcentral Montana

2012 -13 Results

Kent A McVay

Southern Agricultural Research Center

Montana State University

Why Enhance N Fertilizers?

Worldwide fertilizer N use efficiency = 33%

(Raun and Johnson 1999)

For urea numerous loss pathways exist:

Ammonia volatilization

Denitrification

Leaching

Runoff

Enhanced Nitrogen Products

Inhibitors

DCD

n-BPT

Slow Release

Sulfur coated urea

Controlled Release

Polymer coated urea

*Adapted from the International Plant Nutrition Institute (2013)

Three factors come together for irrigated production in SC Montana

1. Tillage and bed formation usually occurs in the fall

2. Irrigation is from surface water, not wells

3. Our nitrogen source is Urea

Why Does Industry like Urea?

• Safer to ship and handle

• Less corrosive to equipment

• Higher analysis than any other dry product

• Can be used virtually on any crop

• Easily stored

• Easily spread

• Highly water soluble

ESN from Agrium

http://www.smartnitrogen.com/

Mechanism of Enhanced N for ESN

UreaH2O

CO(NH2)2 . H2O

Water diffuses in … Urea diffuses out …

(moisture) (temperature)

What should be the impact

on yield?

N application

Yie

ld

Baseline

Enhanced

Stats: Need to see a significant interaction

between the product and application rate.

What Is The Right Mix?

Untreated UreaESN urea

Sugar Beet Study

Materials and Methods

Fall soil test showed 80 lb/acre nitrate in 4’ profile

Urea was mixed with ESN

Total N Rates of 0, 25, 75, 125, and 175 lbs N/acre

In Ratios of 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% ESN with balance UREA

Applied December 6, 2012 and incorporated with Triple-K

Sugar beets were planted on April 30, 2013

24” rows for 42,200 plants/acre

Irrigation by furrow as needed

Harvest Sep16, 2013

Analysis of Variance Summary

Sugar Beet Response, Huntley

MT 2013Root

Yield

Recoverable

Sucrose

SLM % Sucrose

Rep * * NS *

Nitrogen (N) Rate ** ** NS NS

Urea/ESN mix NS NS NS NS

N x mix NS NS * NS

Significance levels are indicated as *5%, and **1% using F statistic. NS is non-significant

Main Effects on Sugar Beets,

Huntley 2013Main Variable Root Yield Recoverable

Sucrose

SLM

Nitrogen Rate Tons/acre Tons/acre %

0 24.7 3.30 0.93

25 29.1 3.83 0.98

75 32.2 4.26 0.95

125 35.2 4.76 0.96

175 35.4 4.77 0.96

LSD (.05) 1.36 0.215 NS

LSD values in each column are used to compare treatment means within the main variable using Fisher’s protected LSD. Check values (0 N rate) are shown for comparison only and are not part of this ANOVA test. A separate test (data not shown) was used to verify the significant response to N for root yield, recoverable sucrose, and SLM.

Main Effects on Sugar Beets,

Huntley 2013Main Variable Root Yield Recoverable

Sucrose

SLM

Urea/ESN mix

0/100 32.6 4.39 0.96

20/80 31.7 4.24 0.98

40/60 33.6 4.52 0.96

60/40 33.6 4.41 0.96

80/20 32.9 4.43 0.97

100/0 33.4 4.45 0.96

LSD (.05) NS NS NS

LSD values in each column are used to compare treatment means within the main variable using Fisher’s protected LSD. Check values (0 N rate) are shown for comparison only and are not part of this ANOVA test. A separate test (data not shown) was used to verify the significant response to N for root yield, recoverable sucrose, and SLM.

ANOVA Summary Sugar Beet

Huntley MT 2012

Sugar Beets Root

Yield

Sucrose

Yield

% SLM %

Sucrose

Rep NS NS ** NS

Check vs Applied N * NS NS NS

Nitrogen (N) Rate * NS ** NS

Urea/ESN mix * NS NS NS

N x mix NS NS NS NS

NS, Not significant; * significant at 0.05 probability; ** significant at

0.01 probability

Sugar Beet Response to N

Rate, Huntley 2012

25

27

29

31

33

35

0 30 60 90 120Ro

ot

Yie

ld (t

on

s / A

cre

)

N-Fertilizer (lbs/acre)

(128 lbs/acre nitrate residual)

Sugar Beet Response to N Mix,

Huntley 2012

28

30

32

34

36

38

0/100 20/80 40/60 60/40 80/20 100/0

Ro

ot

Yie

ld (t

on

s / a

cre

)

Urea/ESN Application Ratio

PLSD = 4.3 tons/acreA

AB

C

ABC

BCBC

Different letters indicate significant difference using Fisher’s LSD(.05)

Sucrose Yield Over 2 Years,

Huntley, MT

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

0/100 20/80 40/60 60/40 80/20 100/0

Su

cro

se (

ton

s/a

cre

)

Urea:ESN Mix

2012 2013 average

Top yield group using Fisher’s LSD(.05)

Significance of Nitrogen Rate, Mix

and Interactions Across Crops

Huntley, MT

Sugar Beet Corn Spring Wheat

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

N Rate (R) * ** ** ** ** **

N Mix (M) * NS NS NS NS NS

R x M NS NS NS NS NS *

Results for sugar beet root yield, corn and spring wheat grain yield.Significance levels are indicated as *5%, and **1% using F statistic. NS is non-significant

Interaction of N Source x Rate

Spring Wheat, Huntley, 2013

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Gra

in Y

ield

(b

u/a

cre

)

Fertilizer N (lbs/acre)

Urea:ESN Mix by N Rate

0/100 33/67 67/33 100/0

Summary

All three crops showed minimal yield impact to

inclusion of ESN

ESN is a product designed to reduce N loss

For best chance of response use ESN where:

Leaching loss potential is high: sandy soils

Denitrification loss postential is high: heavier soils where soils can become saturated for extended periods of time

ESN might reduce volatilization loss of surface broadcast

N. Further research is needed

No further investigation of ESN is warranted

Thanks

Contact info:

Kent A McVay

Extension Cropping Systems Specialist

Southern Agricultural Research Center748 Railroad Hwy

Huntley, MT 59037

406-348-3400

www.sarc.montana.edu