• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Greenhouse studies
 Laboratory studies
 General discussion
 General summary
 Appendix
 Literature Cited
 Biographical sketch
 Copyright














Title: Nitrate production and plant response resulting from soil applications of urea, biuret, two urea-formaldehyde compounds and ammonium sulfate
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091625/00001
 Material Information
Title: Nitrate production and plant response resulting from soil applications of urea, biuret, two urea-formaldehyde compounds and ammonium sulfate
Series Title: Nitrate production and plant response resulting from soil applications of urea, biuret, two urea-formaldehyde compounds and ammonium sulfate
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Tennille, Aubrey Wayne,
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091625
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000407951
oclc - 36794885

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Binder1 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Review of literature
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Greenhouse studies
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
    Laboratory studies
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    General discussion
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
    General summary
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Appendix
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
    Literature Cited
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
    Biographical sketch
        Page 105
        Page 106
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text










Nitrate Production and Plant Response Resulting

From Soil Applications of Urea, Biuret, Two

Urea-Formaldehyde Compounds and

Ammonium Sulfate









By
AUBREY WAYNE TENNILLE









A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
June, 1959














AC12!O..LEDG, W;TS


Appreciation is extended to Dr, Go D. Thornton, Chairman of the

Supervisory Cor~aittee, for his guidance and supervision during this

work; to Doctors C, F, Eno, L. C. Hairoond, R. D. Powell, and D. S.

Anthony, r.e.bcrs of the Supervisory Cc.-i'ttcc, for their part in

planning and cupcrvicing the course work.

The rritcr is also ir.debtcd to his wife, Patricia Ann, for her

oncoura~s:c-nt and help t ile this work was in progress, and also for

the help rendered during the preparation of this dissertation.















TABLE OF CONTEfTS


Paso

ACI.iO:.'LEDG7:TLS. 4 . . . 4 . 4 . . . ., 4 . ii

LIT OF FIGURES. . . . . . , . v

LIT OF TADIZS *. . .., . . . . vi

I1TRODUCTIOIN . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF lTERATURE . .. . . . . . . . . 3

GCiEEIMIOUt:E FTUDIES . . . . . . 14

Plant Recovery of Titrogon Fro:-i Urea, Urito
.orc-n's 38, and Ar:.oniuti Sulfato ,. . . . . 14

Introduction and objective . . 14
orincntal . .. . . . . 14
ults and discussion 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 p * 16
rEtuilts and discussion . . . . . . . 16


LADOATORY rTUDIE. . . . . . . . 44

Hiitrato Production Resulting Proe "oil Applications
of riluro-, Urce, and A~-:oniru: Sulfate . . . . 44

Introduction and objective . . . . . 44
Exporimcntal 4 4 4 4 4 4 . 4 .. . 4 44
Results and discussion . . . * 45
Sutmary .. . . . 4 . . . 61

NIumber of i'croormnic-n in Arredondo Fine Sand
rnccivinG Various Rates of f.iurct, Urea, and
Arionium rulfatc. .* * . . . . . . 64

Introduction and objective. . . . . . 64
LEp-priLrcntal . 4 4 * . . . . *, 64
Results and discussion . ** . 65
SuymaLy. *.. .* . * i . .... 67

G7LRAL DISCU.SIO:i . . . . . . . 68













PnLToo





LiTnliUEE AURCITED) * , * r9 100)















LIST OF FIGURES


Figures


1. Total Yields of Oats and Millet Grown for
249 Days on Kanapaha Fine Sand With Various
Eitrogon Sources . . *

2. Total Grams of Nitrogen Recovered by Oats
and !'illot Gromw on Kanapaha Fine Sand for
249 Days W'ith Various 'itrogon Sources . . .


3* Total Yields of Millet Grom for 143 Days
on Knnapaha Fine Sand Uith Various Nitrogen
Sources . . . . . . *. .

4. Total Grams of Nitrogen Recovered by Millet
Grown for 143 Days on Kan~paha Fine Sand
Uith Various Nitrogen Sources *


* b



. . .


Page














LIST OF TABLES


Tables Page

1 Yields of Oats and Millet From Applications of
Armonim Sulfate and Two Urea-Formaldehydo Compounds
to Kenapaha Fine Sand (Average of Three Replications). 17

2 Iitrogen Uptake by Oats and Millet Fron Applications
of Anr-oniir Siulfate and Two UTrca-Forr:aldchyde Compounds
to Kanapaha Fine Sand (Average of Three Replications).. 22

3 Reaction and Total Nitrogen of Kanapaha Fine Sand
Follow-ing Final Harvest of Oats and lillet
(Average of Three Replications). . ,. . .* *. 26

4 Recovery of Added Iitrogcn From Several Sources
by Oats and Millet, and l'itrogcn crIainingn in
Soil 249 Days After Treatments Were Applied to
Ianapaha Fine S nad . d. . .. . . .. 28

5 Yiclds of Iillct From Applications of Urea and
Two Urea-Formaldehyde Corpounds to Kanapaha Fine
Sand (Average of Two Replications) . .* *. 30

6 NTitrogen Uptake by lillet Fron Applications of
Urea and Two Urea-Forialdehyde Co;pounds to
ltanpatha Fine Sand (Average of 'To Replications) . 34

7 Soil Reaction and Total Nitrogen of CZnapaha Fine
Sand Following Final Harvest of ":illot
(Average of Tio Replications). .. 0 5 38

8 Recovery of Added Iitrogen From Several Sources by
Hillet, and Nitrogon Rc::aining in Soil 143 Days
After Trcatri.cnts Icre Applied to Y'anapaha Fine Sand, 40

9 Soil Reaction and Nitrate I itrogcn Produced Fro:i
Applications of Bluret, Urea, and Art-oniiini Sulfate
in Arrc~ondo Fine Sand (Average of Three Replications) 47

10 Nitrate Nitrogen Produced From Applications of
Biurot, Urea, and Amonium Sulfate to Peat
(Average of Three TIoplications) . # * 50














11 A~monia Iitroocn Produced From Applications of
Biuret, Urea, and Amonium Sulfate to Peat
(Avorage of Three fleplications). . .* . .

12 pH Values at the End of Each Incubation Period
1ith 300 PPM litrogon Added as Biuret, Urea,
and Ar"oniun Sulfate to Peat. . . . . .

13 Ilitrate N7itrogen Produced From Applications of
Biuret, Urea, and Anmoniumw Sulfate in Arredondo
Fine Sand (Average of Three Replications).* . *. *

14 Soil Reaction and Ammonia Hitrogen of Arredondo
Fine Sand Four :c!-c; After Treatn:cnts With Biuret,
Urea, and Ammoniun Sulfate (Average of Tlrce
Replications). . .. . . . . ,

15 Number of Microorganiczz in Arredondo Fine Sand
After One and Two 'coke of Incubation With Biurot,
Urea, and A.-moniua Sulfato & * . * .


APPEU DI TABLES


1 Yields of Oats and Millet Fron Applications of
Amonium Sulfate and Two Urrn-Formaldchyde
Compounds to Kanapn!h Fine rnd.. .. . ,


* 0 *


2 Hitrogon Uptake by Oats and Millet From
Applications of A,-. oniun Sulfate and T.:o
Urea-Formaldehyde Conpounds to Kanapaha Fine

3 Soil Reaction of Kanapaha Fine Sand 249 Days
After Applications of Aronium rulfat~ and
Two Urea-Fon!rldc',i2c Compounds. # . .


Sand, .


4 4 # 4


4 Total Gra~s of Iitrogen Rcnaining in Kanapaha
Fine Sand 249 Days After Applications of Ar)onitum
Sulfate and Two Urca-For-aldehydo Conpounds. .

5 Yields of aillet From Applications of Urea and
Two Urea-FormaldeIyde Compounds to Kanapaha
Fine Sand, . . . . .


vii


Tables


Pago













6 Nitrogen Uptake by Millet Fron Applications of
Urea and Two Urea-Fornaldohyde Compounds to
Kanapaha Fine Sand .. . ., . , 84

7 Soil Reaction of innapaha Fine Sand 143 Days After
Application of Urea and Twuo Urea-Fom aldehyde Conpounds, 86

8 Total Grams of Nitrogen Remaining in Kanapaha
Fine Sand 143 Days After 'pplicationz of Urea
and Two Urea-Formaldohyde Compounds. . . . 0 87

9 lHitrate Nitrogen Produced From Applications of
iiuret, Urea, and A-ioniu" :Sulfate to Arredondo
Fine Sand, . . . . . . .. . . 88

10 Reaction of Arredondo Fine Sand After 40 Days'
Incubation With Biuret, Urea, and Ar.ionium Sulfate . 90

31 Nitrate Iiitrogen Tro. Applications of Diurot,
Urea, and :-woniu: Sulfate to Peat . . . . 91

12 Ar::onin Nitrogen From Applications of EhLrot,
Urea, and A~onixtu Sulfate to Peat. ... . 92

13 Reaction of Peat After Incubation .ith Diurct,
Urea, and An :oniun Sulfate .. . .* . . 93

14 Nitrate Initrocon Produced Fro-i Applications of
Biuret, Urea, and Amroniun Sulfate to Arrcdondo
Fine Sand. . . . . * * *. # 94

15 Reaction of Arredondo Fine Cand After Four oeeks'
Incubation With Biuret, Urea, and Anmoniun Sulfate . 96

16 Ammonia i;itrogon From Applications of Biuret, Urea,
and Anmoniur Sulfate to Arredondo Fine 2and After
Four Weeks' Incubation . , # . , . 97

17 Ihuiber of 1*icroorcanii:is After Seven Days'
Incubation Wtith B3iurct, Urca, and Armonium
."ulfate in Arredondo Pine Sand . . 9 . 98

18 Number of licroorganisms After Fourteen Days'
Incubation With Biurct, Urea, and Amonium
Sulfate in Arredondo Fine Sand. . . . 99


viii


Tables


Page














EITRODUCTIOT:


A long time goal of agriculturists has been to obtain a synthetic

nitrogen fertilizer which is water insoluble and slowly available. The

natural organic materials which are used possess many desirable qualities

such as slow availability and resistance to leaching. However, the cost

of these materials in relation to their nitrogen content is often high

and frequently all of the nitrogen is not available for plant growth dur-

ing a single growing season. In 1941, McCool (44) demonstrated that the

nitrogen in the reaction products of urea and formaldehyde was available

to growing plants. Since that time the production of these reaction

products has been developed on a commercial scale and they are now manu-

factured by several companies. These materials are water insoluble,

will not cause burning if applied in large amounts, and the nitrogen is

slowly available to growing plants. These materials are known as "Urea-

Forns" or by their trade names.

Uith improvements in the manufacture of some nitrogen sources, cer-

tain problems have been encountered. One of these is biuret toxicity.

Biuret is formed as an impurity in urea fertilizer material during the

pelleting process and has been shown to be toxic to certain plants. The

use of polloted urea has increased as a source of nitrogen for foliage

Fpr.:yc and dry applications during the past few years. This increase

has resulted in more frequent occurrences of biuret toxicity r-sptoi.s.







2



The objective of the research reported in this dissertation was to

compare the yields and plant uptake of nitrogen from two urea-fornalde-

hyde compounds, ammonium sulfate, and urea, and to determine the nitrate

production resulting from soil applications of biuret, urea, and a.Tmoniu~

sulfate.














REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Urca-fornaldehydo compounds have been teclmically defined as mix-

tures of polymethyleneureas which exhibit urea:formaldehyde mole ratios

greater than 1, nitrogen contents in excess of 37 per cent, low solu-

bilities in water and organic solvents, and lower rates of nitrification

in soil media than the more soluble forms of chemical nitrogen fertili-

zers (3). Urea-formaldehyde compounds available in 1956 and their pro-

ducers were: Uramite manufactured by DuPont, Borden's 38 manufactured

by Borden, Nitroforn manufactured by Woonsocket Color and Che-ical Com-

pany, and Golden Vigoro manufactured by Swift (3). DuPont announced
Urairte in June, 1955, which was the first urea-formaldehyde fertilizer

to reach marketing stage. Its development had been under way since 1938

(4). In 1948, Clark ot al. (14) proposed the name "Urea-Form" for the

group of urea-formaldehyde compounds ucful as fertilizers. Collings

(15) points out that urea-ammonia-liquor-37 was developed for a water
insoluble nitrogen source prior to World War II,

Yee and Love (68) have shown that by combining urea and formaldehyde

a plastic is formed. This plastic was produced in acid as well as alka-

line solutions. Several patents have been issued for the manufacture of

urea-formaldehyde compounds. In 1941, two patents for the manufacture

of Urea-Forms were issued to Keenen and Sachs (36,37) and were asignied

to E. I* DuPont de Nemours and Company. A patent to Rohner and Wood (51)

was issued in 1947 and assigned to Solvay Process Co::pany. Patr et al.











(48) were issued a French patent in 1951. In 1952, a patent was issued

to Kralovec and Huffman (39) and was assigned to E. I. DuPont do Ileo:ourv

and Company. Kise (38) and Davenport (16) were issued patents in 1953.

All of the above patented processes are for the mixing of urea and for-

raldehydo. The main differences between the procesces are the different

urea:formaldehyde mole ratios and whether the reaction is carried out in

an acid or alkaline solution, However, in 1951, Clark etal. (13) reported

a modification of the concentrated solution r-.cthod of manufacturing Urea.

Form, They state that by neutralizing the reaction nirxture at the proper

stago, a more soluble material is produced and this also stabilizes the

material to further heat treatments.

Since patents have been issued and several companies have been

manufacturing urea-formaldehyde compounds, Joffe (29) estimated in 1955

that the raw materials to make Urea-Forms will be 40 to 50 per cent

greater in cost than urea alone. This does not include production and

development costs.

Nitrification studies were made by :cCool (44) in 1941 on cotton-

seed meal, urea-amnonia-liquor-37, and resin scrap (a urea-formaldehyde

reaction product). He found that the nitrification rate was about the

same over a 60-day period* lowcver, #Te and Love (68) found that as the

ureamformaldehyde ratio was increased, the nitrification rates of the

products wore increased. They found that a slight increase in the ratio

brought about marked increases in nitrification rates of the products.

Fuller and Clark (20) indicated that urea-formaldehyde compounds promoted

microbial activity and also found that the nitrification rate would vary











with different soils. In a study of nitrification rates of am oniumi

sulfate, Uramite, tankage, and cottonseed meal, Volk (59) found that

the important difference betmcon the rates of nitrogen release was that

ammonium sulfate far e::ce-ded the others during the early we!:.

Clark (12), in 1952, gave a review of the results of greenhouse and

field trials of the Urea-Forms, He stated that "with a few exceptions,

the use of Urea-Forms as the sole source of nitrogen at normal levels of

application has not shown satisfactory results as measured by crop yield

increases in field -eporimnnts on row crops and small grains." 0Torking

with Urca-Torn;s on corn and cotton in Alabama, Scarsbrook (55) found

that with each Urea-Form mixture tried it required about twice as much

applied nitrogen from the Urea-Frcms as when the nitrogen was applied as

ammonium nitrate. However, Kralovec and :orC-n (40) state that a single

application of Urca-Forn containing four pounds of nitrogen per 1,000

square feet will supply enough nitrogen for adequate turf growth for a

year. Also, on turf, ::u.scr et al. (46) found that fertilization with

Urea-Forms gave a more uniform rate of nitrogen release throughout the

growing season than activated ccm ,ce sludge, amionium sulfate, uramon,

or several other organic materials. But by using split applications of

other materials, they were able to obtain ,ro-rth rcsponrcz cinilar to

single applications of urca-forrmldehyde cc:npoundz. Ucing Urea-Fonms

of different mole ratios on Bermuda grass, Armiger et al. (6) found that

as the mole ratio of urea:formaldehyde was increased, the availability

of the nitrogen was incrcazcd. Urea-Forms with a mole ratio of 1.30

gave better per cent nitrogen recovery than milorganite (activated r~waCe











sludcc), w while Urca-Forr:s with ratios of 1.26 and 1,18 gave less recov-

erable nitrogen when Bermuda grass was used as the indicator crop on a

subsoil in a period of growth of 315 days. However, the rates of nitro-

gen recovery for different materials in dccreasinr; order were as follows:

Uramon, Uroa-Forn with a 1.30 ratio, milorganite, Urea-Form with a ratio

of 1.26, and Uroe-Forn i th a 1.18 ratio. This recovery was during 300

days, using perennial ryegrass as the indicator crop and an application

of 100 pounds nitrogen per acre. They found with both the Bermuda grass

and perennial ryegrass that Ur-:,on gave high recovery at firstt but clo;cd

down after about 46 days, while the Urea-Forr:s gave fairly constant re-

covery at all cuttings. Ar..icer ot al. (5) also found that the initial

uptake of nitrogen by perennial ryegrass from Uramon was significantly

greater thin for milorganite, and Urea-Forms with ratios of 0.73, 1.25,

1.29, 1.31, and 1,36. They found that most of the nitrogen recovery by

the ryegrass from urea occurred within the first 21 days, r'ile with the

other sources the nitrogen recovery was spread out more evenly over a

period of 299 days.

A review of the literature on urea-formaldchyde compounds has shown

that most c:.rprincnts gave results which indicated a slow and uniform

release of nitrogen from these compounds. However, only a few experi-

ments have been reported ihich show data relating to crop growth and

none of these c:-rori:cnts were conducted on soils similar to certain ones

found in Florida. The first part of this dissertation was conducted to

determine the availability of two urea-fornaldehyde compounds as com.

pared with a--aoniu- sulfate and urea. With experincnts conducted in











greenhouse pots it was very easy to determine the nitrogen content of

the potted soil and determine if there was any loss of added nitrogen.

As early as 1942, Jewitt (28) found that considerable ammonia was

lost through volatilization with high applications of anuoniumr sulfate

to alkaline Sudan soils, ':e related this loss to loss of moisture from

the soil. Dhar and Pant (17) found nitrogen was lost from soil as a re-

sult of the docc:-.position of urea, even in the complete absence of

microorganisms, and that the loss was greater under light than dark con-

ditions. Wallace ond C. th (66) found that with urea there was a loss

of added nitrogen. it was pointed out by Chapa::n et al. (10) that rather

large quantities of nitrogen were presumably lost through gaseous vola-

tilization of ammonia. Using a clay loam soil with pH 8.0, Ch:ap-.n and

I'artin (11) found that less ammonia nitrogen was lost from applied urea

than from applications of either amrnoninu sulfate, ammonium hydroxide,

or ammonium nitrate. However, ucing csrndy and sandy loan coilZ, Wahhab

et al, (62) found twice as much ar-onia volatilized front the sandy soil

than from the sandy loan soil. Loss of nitrogen increased with increased

ammonia concentration, but decreased with increase in depth of fertilizer

placement and also with decrease in soil pH, until at pH 5.4 there was

no loss. Loss of ranLonia nitrogen also increased with increasing tem-

peratures. On the other hand, with additions of sodium nitrate and

amoniumr sulfate singly or together, 'ahliiab and Uddin (64) found that a

high pH caused losses of nitrogen much greater than could be accounted

for through volatilization of ammonia and decomposition of sodium ni-

trate. They also found that the loss of added nitrogen wms increa'oed as











the concentration of amnonia was increased (63) Wagner and Smith (61)

treated eight different soils (a fine sand, six silt loars, and a clay)

in beakers with 500 ppm nitrogen fron urea, aqua amaonia, anmronium suul.

fate, azr-oniun nitrate, and zodiur. nitrate. They found that nitroon

mas lost fro.- all sources by some soils after five months of incubation
at cptiaur- moisture. They also found that ammonia was lost more rapidly

when rza-run concentration was present in the surface soil solution.

!Iitro-cn applied as urea to a silt loan soil resulted in 85 per cent of

the applied nitrogen being unaccounted for after five months. The

Croatcot loss of nitrogen in the fine sand was froL the aqua ammonia

treatment, being 17.1 per cent of that added. The urea treatment lost

only 10.3 per cent after five months. Frcnmally, additions of urea to

soils are qadicly converted to ar-:onia. In this forn it is readily used

by rnicroorcanisnc, or if formed in cxceszive amounts, some of it may es-

cape as gas, especially in limed soil (42), Broadbent (9) studied the

loss of nitrate in samples of several sandy loan soils. He found that

naximun loss of nitrate nitrogen occurred at pH 6.3. Losses there less

at both the alkaline and acid side of this value. However, according to
-artin and Chapm.an (42), when the soil p: exceedL- approxiratoly 7.0 and

awmonia is prc-ent in the soil, Cono of the arironia will be lost as a

cas. Very little arr:.onia is lost when neutral or acid amorniuni salts

are added to neutral or acid soils. With high te.peraturcs ammonia is

lost more rapidly. They found that a loss of moisture from a soil will

cause loss of ammonia. On the other hand, Jones (30), studying the loss

of elemental nitrogen from soils under anaerobic conditions, found that











about 80 per cent of the nitrogen added as nitrate was lost from a soil

as a gas within three days after the air-dry soil was moistened. By

using I 15, he dotcrnined that over the range of pH 4*0 to 6.0 only a

small trace of the evolved nitrogen came from sources other than the ni-

trates or nitrites for.cd in or added to the soil. However, on desicca-

tion, ::adho: and Uddin (41) have shovn that nitrous nitrogen is lost

from soils having pH values higher than 7.0, They state that the pheno-

menon is purely chc.-ical. The degree of loss varies directly with the

concentration of nitrous nitrogen and the losses also vary with differ-

ent soils and may take place in soils with pH values as high as 10.7,

Factors found to be responsible for the losccz were carbon dioxide and

a~nronia of the air, exchangeable hydrogen of the soil, and the catalytic

action of some coilc.

The above reports verify loss of nitrogen from soils. This loss

occurs largely through volatilization and in most instances as ammonia.

Using an acid Kanapaha fine sand, Blue and Eno (8) found low plant

recovery of nitrogen where added as urea and anhydrous ammonia as con-

pared to ammonium sulfate. Also, they found the recovery of added

nitrogen was increased by lining.

partholonri and Hiltbold (7) found that plant yields and rates of

nitrogen uptake wore lower in soils vwhch had corn fodder added than

soils to which alfalfa or no plant residue as added. Fertilizer nitrogen

in cropped soils had essentially disappeared from minerall form, and plant

uptake of the fertilizer constituent had almost ceased by the time oats

had reached the boot stage. Plant uptake of fertilizer nitrogen increased











in direct proportion to the rate of application. Recoveries of the

nitrogen applications ranged from 2? to 54 per cent,

Very little has been reported in the literature on the nitrifica-

tion rate of biuret. According to Hardesty (24), urea loses amrmonia and

for1,3 biuret when ihated above 133 doegrcc C, in the abrcnce of water,

and when urea is pellated in a dry air current, biurot can be fonrcd.

As early as 1953, Jones and Steinacker (35) stated that nitrogen

applied as urea sprays was nore efficient in maintaining leaf nitrogen

than when the nitrogen is applied to the soil. However, they found leaf

injury sometimes results from the application of urea sprays. Also,

Jones and Embleton (32) reported in 1954 that by using pelleted urea as

a spray, a yellowing of the leaves may occur. This is called yellowow

tip," They stated furt!- r that this yellow tip is apparently cauccd by

biurot, an inpurity in all sources of pcllcticcd urea tested. They also

reported that as much as 2.5 per cent or r:ore biurot may be found in pel-

leted urea (33). Jones (31) found yellow tip occurred on citrus when

solutions of pelleted urea, crystalline-urea-biuret mixtures, or pure

biuret were applied. However, no injury was observed from crystalline

urea, and combinations of urea and biuret produced more severe symptoms

than biurct applied alone Obcrbachor (47) found that chlorosis developed

on citrus rhiln biurct vwa applied as a foliage pray or applied to the

soil. The time needed for the chlorosis to appear varied with the sea-

son and the longest time required acs when biuret was applied during the

winter months. Applications of biurot to lemon and avocado cuttingZ

gro.i-ng in zand cultures imro made by Haas and 3Drusca (22,23), They











found that here levels of 0, 50, 100, and 150 ppm biuret had been ap-

plied, leaves of leson and avocado cuttings rero affected with a

chloritic condition in all biuret trcatnonts. Jones ct al. (340) tated

that urea containg n nore than 0.25 per cent biuret should not be used

as foliar sprays for citrus and when soil applications are made the urea

should not contain more than 2.5 per cent biurot. Sanford et al. (54),

working with pineapple plants, found a correlation between to-icity

sypto:', (yellowing of leaves) and the amount of biuret present in the

spray# As the amount of biuret increased, the toxicity symptoms in-

creaced. However, uzing beans as the indicator crop, Rai ct 2l. (50)

found that they were seriously injured on clay loam soil but relatively

less affected on mucks and candy soils when treated with biuret. They

also found that the amount of injury was related to the a-iount of biurot

application. Also, Cnika and Erith (56), using wheat as an indicator

crop, found with soil applications of biuret that as the concentration

of biuret was increased the porcentagc cor.iination twas decrcazed. With

a biurot concentration of 15 per cent and nitrocgn rates of 20 and 40

pounds per acre, the gcrr.ination of wheat eodsz were 33 and 10 per cent,

respectively.

The above reocarchers reported that biuret will cause toxic s:.yptoms

to occur on crops; horwver, very fow workers have reported regarding the

causes of this toxicity. In 1957, Webster ct al. (67) concluded that

biurct, either directly or indirectly, inhibited protein ,ynthosis. They

found a sharp docrcase in the total leaf protein and an inhibition of the

incorporation of anino acids into leaf protein. Rai ct 6l. (50) found











that irhcn blurot vac added to the soil, the plant's ::ctaboli-n acr af-

fccted in such a way that the per cent nitrogen and phozphorous was in-

creased in the dry bean tissue.

No data on the rate of nitrification of biuret have been reported*

Certain factors affctzt the production of nitrates. Aldrich and

E~u:ann (1) stated that in highly buffered alkaline soils, only saill

quantities of added nitrogen dioxide are changed into nitric acid.

Similarly, a soil with pH 7.7 or over Gives very little conversion of

nitrite to nitrate according: to Thrtin ct al. (43). '.1-ile pH 7.7 is

usually accepted as the upper threshold value liirting nitrification,

iUS:-~ran (65) states that the lower limiting pH1 for dcvclop..cnt of nitrate

bacteria is 4.0 to 3.7, 'w.ile the optriTum reaction occurs at pH 6.8 to

7,3.
Using three acid sandy soils, Eno and Blue (19) found that urea and

anhydrous anmonia stimulated the nitrification process more than equiva-

lent rates of arzoniua sulfate in lined and unlined soil.

Russel et.al. (53) studied nitrate production under toeporatuerc con-

ditions ranging front 5 to 55 cdgrees C., and -oicturo conditions ranging

from hygroscopic moisture to one and onc-fourth times the roi:.ture equiva-

lent. They found that the rate of nitrate production was slow at 5

decrees C. but as the te:c:peraturo increased, the rate of nitrate pro-

duction increa.cd rapidly. At 35 dcrogc C., nitrate production wras at

a naximug, but above 35 degrceo nitrification became slower and ceased

at 55 decrscc C. Theya also found nitrate production mwas insignificant

at moisture levels as low as the hygroscopic level, but increased with











increasing :roicture content up to and including one and one-fourth times

the moisture equivalent.

Volk (58) found that applications of urea increased the soil pH

nbre than an equal amount of amnoni~i nitrate. He also found that the

use of one pound of urea per square yard increased the pH above 7.7 and

inhibited rapid nitrate production (60), However, this pH value per-

ritted formation and accnuaulation of nitrites. .kronia applications in

irrigation waters were nade.by Dai.scrC and 3uch:u':or (-S)* Tlhey foumd

that the nitrification of anmonia proc Ied d about the same rate in

the presence of barley as in treated soil alone. The nitrification rate

of urca, when used alone or with a chloride group, twas less than when

the urea was applied with a carbonate, sulfate, or phoSphato group, ac-

cordinc to Jacobson et al. (27).















CGP-EIOU.E STUDIES


Plant Recovery of Nitrogen From Urea, Urna.ite,
Borden's 38, and Am~roniux Sulfate

Introf.uition l .ndo .b,_;ec tL-".

The following e:.c-cri:,:cnts were d;::icrd to determine the avail-

ability and rate of nitrogen release fron :u..:r ,ea-cr-.2dchcldeo co:pound;

as co :.ar-cd with ac~oniumi sulfate asnd uroes It has been c".:l (h4)

that the urea-forw:ialdehyde compounds are sources fr,:. -.ich ni-r.: -; is

released slowly and uniformly over long periods of tii:e

*-,_- ,-- ,,- ^.,--i-

The greenhouse c:Fc:'ir-i'nt. wIre conducted in the u-r:.eo soil of

::anap I l fine srd The soil was sieved tlhougi a qurtier-inch screen,

thorougcily ixoed, and placed in one- and four-gallon pot-:. .p-liaions

of superphosphate and potassium chloride rwre made at rate equivalcnt

to 200 pounds P205 and K20 per acres All fertilizer material were mixed

with'the upper four inches of the soil. Denineralized water was used for

maintaining moisture but never in L:ounts zuffic.'.cal to caIus elo:hing

losses. Water was applied on days when the surface of the soil was dry

during the :.orninC. The four-gallon potz received approximately one

quart of water, while tho on,-s.alon pots received. ..; -:.::.:i-..- l:- one-half

pin t each watorin.-. When greenhouse tcnporatu'res beca-ie high during

the surror, it was necessary to add e on water in the afternoon.












Plant c nples were taken uhen good growth had occurred. Thcse

samples trere dried at 70 degr-ooc C., weighed, and ground in a !lilcry mill

prior to analysis.

After the last cutting, soil was rco:'.ed from the potL, mixed, and

samples were taken for total nitrogen and p: dotor.iinations,

Total nitrogen in plant and soil inxplcs was detenrinod according

to the modified Kjoeldal r:tI.o of Ounning, y:',.ich include' nitrate

nitrogen (45). Soil p~ values mwre dctcr.lined with. a Eock an zeromatic

pr! metor on a 1:2 soil-water suspension.

Exerient ,1. This experiment was designed to compare the avail-

ability of nitrogen from Uranite and Borden's 38 with ammonium sulfate.

Uramite is produced by DuPont Chemical Company and Porden's 38 by the

Borden Chemical Company. Both compounds contain 38 per cent nitrogen.

Three levels of nitrogen were used, 0 grams, 1.35 grams, and 2.70

grams per four-gallon pot, which was equivalent to 0, 100, and 200 pounds

of nitrogen per acre. These treatments were replicated three times in

a completely randomized design.

All fertilizer applications were made on December 2, 1956, and oats

were planted the sane day. After the oat seedlings were well estab-

lished they were thinned to ten plants per pot. Oats were harvested on

January 31 and March 11, 1957. On March 12, 1957, the surface of the

soil was scarified and millet was seeded. One week later the millet was

thinned to eight plants per pot. The millet was harvested on May 11,

June 28, and August 7, 1957.












Experiment 2. This experiment was conducted to determine the rela-

tive availability of nitrogen from Uranite, Borden's 38, and urea.

Containers used for this experiment were small neck, one-gallon jugs

which had approximately one inch of the bottoms removed. After the bot-

toms were removed, the jugs were, in effect, small lysimeter pots.

One-gallon tin cans were used as the base to support the inverted jugs.

A small watch glass was inserted in the neck of the jugs so that the

soil would stay within. The outside of the jugs was painted with aluni-

num paint to reduce the effect of excessive heat and light on the soil.

Four levels of nitrogen were used, 0, 0.1663, 0.3326, and 0.4989

grams per pot, which was equivalent to 0, 75, 150, and 225 pounds per

acre. Treatment was made in duplicate. A factorial, randomized block

design was used.

Millet was seeded on March 18, 1957, following the application of

fertilizer. One week later the seedlings were thinned to four per pot.

Cuttings were made on May 13, June 28, and August 7, 1957.

Results and discussion

Experiment 1. Yield data are reported in Table 1. At the low rate

of nitrogen, oat yields from checks were significantly lower at the first

cutting than those receiving nitrogen, while only antmonium sulfate was

significantly higher than the check at the second cutting. The first

cutting of millet also gave significantly lower yields from checks when

compared with all nitrogen treatments. The second cutting of millet gave

no significant difference between the check and aimmonium sulfate, while

yields from the urea-formaldehyde compounds were significantly larger










TADLE 1


Yields of Oats and :illet From Application.: of .-.onnin Sulfate and
Tro r?.n-Fo.ald'O.-hydrco Co- pou-idz to a-.n-paha Fine Sand
(A'verag of Three P.cplic'.t-iclns)

Yiold


Urait-jt
lordcn's 38
(11r4)2220
JUraito
Bordon's 38
(l-H2`045


Oats
Cuttings (2)
1 2
aEG'poT 0-.Pot


5.43
5.46
10.53

9.55
9.05
4.08

1.58


7.81
8.87
7.70
10.79
12.47
3.57
2.15


Millot
Cuttings()3)
1 2 3
- /Pot 7?c/Pot Gs/Pot


5.98
5.11
2.55
11.10
10.26
11.97

1.83


6.47
6.66
6.49

8.17
8.50
16.32

3.35


16.40
17.30
28.50

24.40
25.70
39.00

5.45


Tot-l (h)
Gos/Pot


42.09
43.40
55.77
64.00
65.98
74.94
14.36


D. TuRcy (57) 5% Level 4.89 3.89 9.73 2.50 7.44 8.80


1.35 :rar: nitrocgn per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.
Oat cuttings at 60 and 100 days fron planting, respectively.
Millet cuttings at 61, 109, and 149 days fro.-i planting, respectively.
Sum of two oat and three tnillet cuttings.


R.te
,(1)
oF^po't


Source


1.35


2.70












than either the check or ammonium sulfate treatment. There were no sig-

nificant differences ar.ong any of the treatments at the final cutting or

between the two urea-formaldehyde compounds at all cuttings. Yields from

the second cutting of oats and the first millet cutting show that ammo-

nium sulfate produced significantly more dry matter than either of the

urea-forr:aldehyde csnpounds, while the second cutting of millet produced

yields significantly higher in favor of the urea-formaldehyde compounds.

From the total yield data at the low rate of application, it is shoun

that arimoniun sulfate produced significantly more dry material than the

two urea-formaldehyde compounds. There was approximately 25 per cent more

total dry matter produced from applications of ammonium sulfate than from

either of the urea-formaldehyde compounds. However, a difference of only

3 per cent was found between the yields of the urea-formaldehyde treat-

ments. The total yields are shown graphically in Figure 1. From the

graphs, the nitrogen sources can be rated on basis of yield from high to

low as follows: a-roniun sulfate, Eorden's 38, Urnurite, and check. The

highest percentage of total yields was produced at the first cutting of

millet. The yield data show that ammonium sulfate produced accumulative

yields at each succeeding cutting which were higher than those produced

from either urea-formaldehyde compound, while the yields from each cut-

ting were approximately the sane at all cuttings for each urea-formalde-

hyde compound.

When nitrogen was applied at the higher rate, the applications of

ammonium sulfate produced low yields for both cuttings of oats. These

low yields were due to the high salt concentration which caused a burning








A Uranitc
B Borden's 38
C (Nil)2SO4
D Check

Millet
Oats
100 Pounds N/Acre


77=~


A B C D


Treatments


200 Pounds
N/Acre


7F


A B C D


Total Yields of Oats and Millet Grown for 249 Days on
Kanapaha Fine Sand With Various Nitrogen Sources


V

/


V~~


Figure 1.


77rr
/


m///












of the oats. No yields were obtained from one replication of the ammo-

nium sulfate treatment, even after reseeding several times, Retarded

growth was observed within the other two replications for both cuttings

of oats. However, when millet was seeded to this treatment, no salt

effect was observed. This could have been due to the conversion of am-

nonia to nitrates and the salts were leached to lower portions of the

potted soil. But no toxic effects were noted from the high applications

of urea-formaldehyde. The reason was probably due to the low solubility

of these compounds which makes them less toxic when applied in large

amounts. Since a toxic effect was encountered from the high applications

of ammonium sulfate, very little value can be obtained from comparisons

of individual cuttings, However, it can be seen that no significant

differences between the yields from Uranite or Borden's 38 were found at

all cuttings of oats or millet. Both cuttings of oats show yields which

were significant in favor of the urea-formaldehyde compounds over ammo-

nium sulfate. However, when millet was used as the indicator crop,

ammonium sulfate produced significantly more dry material than either of

the urea-formaldehyde compounds. This increase was approximately 35 per

cent in favor of ammonium sulfate. This great increase of millet yields

resulting from ammonium sulfate was due to the reduced growth of oats

where less nitrogen was removed by the oats than that removed from the

two urea-formaldehyde compounds.

The total yields of oats and millet show that aemonium sulfate pro-

duced approximately 13 per cent more dry weight than either urea-formal-

dehyde treatment at this high rate of application. Again, there was a












difference of only approximately 3 per cent between the total yields

produced from the urea-formaldehyde treatments. It will be observed in

Figure 1 that with the high rate of application the total yields, in

descending order, were produced from axronium sulfate, Borden's 38,

Uramite, and check.

A comparison between rates of the total yields in Figure 1 shows

that the higher rate of nitrogen produced significantly more dry material

than the lower rate for all sources. However, when the application of

nitrogen was doubled, the yields were not increased in the same order.

Appro:c-iately 30 per cent more total dry matter was produced from the

higher rate of application.

Nitrogen removed by the above-ground portion of oats and millet is

shown in Table 2. The first cutting of oats resulted in significantly

less nitrogen being removed from the check than all nitrogen treatments

at the low rate, except Uramite, Fut asionium sulfate was the only

treatment significantly higher than the check at the last cutting of

oats. No significant differences were found between nitrogen sources

and the check at all cuttings of millet. Significant differences in

favor of armmonium sulfate over both urea-formaldohyde compounds were

found at the second cutting of oats. No significant differences in ni-

trogen uptake occurred from any of the sources at the first cutting of

oats or any of the millet cuttings at the low rate of nitrogen application.

The total nitrogen uptake for all cuttings is also shown in Table 2.

Comparison between sources reveal that approximately 50 per cent more up-

take occurred from ar.noniun sulfate than from either urea-formaldehyde









TABLE 2


I!itrogon Uptake by Oats and :lillt Fromr Applications of At-.oniin Sulfate
and Two Urea-Formaldehyde Cc.-.pounds to Kanapaha Fine Sand
(Average of Three Replications)
Nitrogen Uptake
Oats .iillot
Rate Cuttings (2) Cuttings (3)
1(1) Sourco 1 2 1 2 3 Total()
G5s/Pot G-rs/Pot Gms/Pot Gas/Pot G.ns/Pot Gs/Pot Gs/Pot

1.35 Uramite 0.2330 0.0790 0.1153 0.0483 0.0623 0.5379
Borden's 38 0.2678 0.0834 0,1237 0.0461 0.0513 0.5723
(NI4)2SO4 0.3471 0.3759 0.2479 0.0363 0.0486 1.0558
2.70 Uranite 0.4065 0.1875 0.2182 0.0955 0.0693 0.9770
Borden's 38 0.4987 0.1817 0.2052 0.0874 0.0736 1.0466
(N1,)204 0.1692 0.1687 0.9940 0.2533 0.1809 1.7661
Check' 0.0437 0.0242 0.0428 0.0191 0.0276 0.1574

D. Tuk:r- (57) 5, Level 0.2176 0.1796 0.2495 0.0404 0.0629 0.1734


(1) 1.35 grams nitrzg-n per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.
(2) Oat cuttings at 60 and 100 days from planting, respectively.
(3) Millet cuttings at 61, 109, and 149 days from planting, respectively.
(4) Sum of two oat and three fillet cutting.











compound at the low rate of application; whereas, the total nitrogen re-

covered from Eordcn's 38 was approximately 6 per cent more than fron

Uranite.

The total grams of nitrogen removed by the above-ground portions of

both indicator crops are shown graphically in Figure 2. At the low rate

of application, it can be pointed out that oats recovered appro::ir:ately

60 per cent of the total nitrogen fror: all sources* However, from these

graphs it also can be pointed out that the nitrogen uptake by oats was

approximately 20 per cent more fro. ammonium sulfate than that removed

from the urca-formaldehyde c~:.pounds by all cuttinEf- of oats and rillct.

However, all millet cuttings removed approximately one-third more nitro-

gen from amnoniun sulfate than from either urea-formaldehyde treatment.

At high levels of application, nitrogen uptake was significantly

higher from the two urea-fornmaldehyde compounds than from ammoniut sul-

fate for the first cutting of oats, while the second cutting of oats

produced no significant differences with respect to nitrogen sources.

These low recoveries by oats from anrioninu sulfate are believed to be

due to the reduced yield caused by a burning effect resulting from the

high application of this material. However, all three cutting of millct

resulted in nitrogen recoveries significantly higher from ammonium sul-

fate than from urea-formaldehyde. These high amounts of nitrogen uptake

were due to the small recovery of nitrogen by cats from anmonium sulfate

and relatively larger yields produced by the millet. The resoIon millet

did not encounter a salt toxicity was probably due to the effect of the

salts boing leached to lower portions of the potted soil.









A Uramite
B Borden's 38
c (1is4)2SO4
D Check
Millet
Oats


200 Pounds
N/Acre


1.75



1.50



1.25


-p
o
1.00

t0


0.50


0.75
0.50



0.25


//


7


A B C


Treatments


77


7



/


A B C D


Figure 2. Total Grams of Nitrogen Recovered by Oats and Millet
Grown on Kanapaha Fine Sand for 249 Days With Various
Nitrogen Sources


100 Pounds N/Acre


7


f f J I


d


q f f f f l


I


r r u












No significant differences in yields resulting from the urea-for-

maldehyde compounds were noted at any cutting* All cuttings gave sig-

nificantly hiCior nitrogen recoveries in favor of nitrogen sources over

the check, except the first cutting of oats where arnioniur: sulfate and

check trestnent were not significantly different.

From the total nitrogen uptake of the high rate of application, it

can be pointed out that approximately 40 per cent more nitrocn was re-

moved from armonium sulfate than urea-forraldchyde compounds. Data

presented graphically in Figure 2 show the nitroocn uptake by all cut-

tings of oats and millet. Fro:n these data it can be seen that the

nitrogen recoveries from low to high wore in the following order: check,

Uranite, Borden's 38, and ammoniun sulfate.

Surnarizing data in Table 2 and Figure 2, it can be pointed out that

the treatments receiving the higher nitrogen rates resulted in approxi-

mately twice as nuch nitrogen being recovered as was the case with the

lower rates, Lut it can also be seen that the lowir rate of application

from amEoniur sulfate gave slightly higher recovery than was obtained

from either of the two urea-formaldehyde co:Tpoz2nd- when they were applied

at the higher rate.

The iv-orao p11 values of the soil after the last harvest are pre-

sented in Table 3. The pH values of the soil receiving ammonium sulfate

mwre significantly lower at the low rate of application than all treat-

nents, except Ura-ite at the low rate and Bordon's 38 at the high rate.

I1o significant differences were found between the pH values of soils re-

ceiving the uroa-forrnIdehyde compounds and soils receiving no nitrogen,











TABLE 3

reaction and Total "Jitrogen of K:anpaha Fine Sand
Following Final Harvest of Oats and ,;illot(1)
(Average of Three Replications)
Rate
N(2) Source g itroen(3)
Gs/ Pot Gns/Pot
1.35 Uranite 5.35 6.6687
Borden's 38 5.49 6.5692
(Nfl.)2o04 4.72 6.9673
2.70 Uranite 5.47 7.4152
Borden's 38 5.29 7.2853
(')2S044 4.55 6.6687
Check 5.37 6.4183

D. Tu:cy (57) 55 Level 0.80

(1) 249 days after treatment.
(2) 1.35 gcr.nz nitrogen per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.
(3) Analysis of variance shows no significance for treatronts.












Also, no significant differences were found ar.ong the same sources when

different rates were used.

The total nitrogen rcr aining in the coil after the last cutting is

shown in Table 3. No significant differences bot:cen treatments i:oro

found for these data.

The per cent of added nitrogen recovery by combined harvests of

oats and nillct in a period of 249 days is presented in Table 4. The

highest recovery was obtained fror. :ar:-oniur. sulfate at both rates of

application. At the lower rate of application, the plants removed more

than twice as much nitrogen from the nr.-oniun sulfate treated soils than

from soil treated with urea-fornaldehyde compounds. fHoeover, when nitro-

ecn was added at the rate of 200 pounds per acre, the plants removed

slightly less than twice as much nitrogen from the ammonium sulfate

treatment as compared to the urea-formaldehyde treated soil. The total

nitrogen recoveries show that only about one-third of the nitrogen added

as urea-.formaldehyde compounds was removed by the combined dry weights

of oats and millot whcn nitrogen was applied at both rates. But 66.30

per cent of the added nitrogen was recovered from the lower rate of ni-

trogen applied as armoniun sulfate, while 59.70 per cent was removed at

the higher rate,

t~hen nitrogen was applied at the lower rate, 20 per cent or less

was recovered from the soil after the duration of the experiment

(Table 4). These values more 20.00, 18643, and 11.07 per cent for ammo-

nium sulfate, Uramito, and Sordcn's 38, respectively. Horcver, when the

application was doubled, more than 30 per cent of the nitroCen added as










TAI2M 4


Recovery of Added Nitrogen Fron several Sources by Oats and
1illet, and .itroc.n R-c:nnin3 in Soil 249 Days After
Trcat-.ntr~ ere Applied to Zanapc!aa Fine Sand


Nitrogen
Removcd
By Plants
Gns/Pot


Recovery
Pr Plnts(2
Per Cent


Nitrogen
Recovered
In Soil
Gns/Pot


Recovered
InPe S (2C
Per Cent


Total
Recovered
In Plants
er Cfoil
Per Ccnt


.Ura-ite
Borden's 38

Urajiite
Borden's 38
(I:J)2 04
Check


0.537)
0.5723
1.0558

0.9770
1.0466
0.15746

0.1574


27.94
30.49
66.30

30.48
33.06
59.70


6.6687
6.5692
6.6899

7.4152
7.2853
6.6687

6.4183


18.43
11.07
20.00

36.99
32.18
9.534


(1) 1.35 grams nitrogen per pot cquals 100 pounds per acre.
(2) Calculations of per cent nitrogen recovered ero as follrc:Z

(iI rcrovoed front rcuro) -(: re-.ov.3d front choc'k)
Per cent = Gra~m~ I Added X 100.


Rate

GU-s/Pot


Source


1.35


2.70


46.37
41.56
86.30

67.47
70.05
69.04


n-f-


finn












urea-forn-aldehdo yd rcmaincd in the soil, while only 9.34 per cent re-

rained in the nrtoniun sulfate treated soils.

When the per cent nitrogen recovery by the above-ground portion of

the indicator crops and from the soil are considered together, it wras

observed that at the lower rate, appro;cz-ately twice as much nitrogen

was recovcrcd from ea-:oniu: culfate than from urea-formaldelhde compounds,

'thile at the higher rate rcsovcry waas about the saino for all nitrogen

sources.

One hundred per cent recovery was not obtained with any treatment,

The loss of nitrogen ranged from 58.44 per cent for the lower rate of

Porden's 38 to 13.70 per cent for the lower rate of ainonium sulfate.

The higher rate showed about 30 per cent loss of nitrogen front all

sources* Since the pots were not leached during the experiment, it can

be suspected that this loss of nitrogen was, in part, a gacsous loss.

Othcr workers (42,6l) have reported that loccss of canonia nitrogen in-

crease ipth increasing temperatures. Greenhouse temperatures may have

been sufficiently high during the last months of this oxperinent to con.

tribute to the loss of added nitrogen.

Exporiment 2. Average yields by rillet from Utramite, Borden's 38,

and urea in 143 days are shown in Table 5. No significant differences

in yields were found at the first cutting. Significantly higher yields

for treated over untreated soils were found in two treatments at the

second cutting. These were at the 225-pound rate of nitrogen per acre

of Uranite and the 225-pound rate of Borden's 38. IMhen nitrogen was

applied at the rate of 150 pounds per acre as urea and garden's 38,











TABLE 5

Yields of M1llet From Applications of Urea and Two
Ure-?TorraldLyde Conpounds to Kanapaha Fine S[nd
(Avera.o of Two Replications)

Yields
RaIte Cuttinjns2)
(1) Source 3) 2 Total(3)(4)
ot Gs/Pot Gas/Pot Gms Pot Ons/Pot
0.1663 Urarite 21.33 1.93 3.23 26.49
Borden's 38 22.30 2.48 3,30 28.08
Urea 19.37 1.57 3,66 24.60
0.3326 Uranite 22.98 3.73 1.98 23.69
Bordcn's 38 19.60 2.13 6.12 27.85
Urea 24.88 2.79 5.88 33.35
0.4989 UramiIte 18.22 6.15 2.42 26.79
Borden's 38 22,34 4.30 4.61 31.25
Urea 28.54 1,65 2,35 32.54
ChckI 17.40 1.15 1.74 20.29

D. Tukey (57) 5.i Level 3.09 3,53

(1) 0.1663 grans nitroaczn per pot c qu al 75 pounds per acre.
(2) :illot cuttings at 57, 103, and 143 days from planting,
rcspcctively.
(3) AnaMlyc s of variance dolr no icnificant difference between
treatments,
(4) ur. of three mlillet cuttin-,s.












yields at the last cutting were significantly higher in favor of nitrogen

application over chock treatments.

At the second cutting, yields front the 225-pound rate of nitrogen

application of Uramite were significantly higher than those obtained

from the same rate of application of urea. Other yields at this cutting

were not significant with respect to nitrogen sources.

At the third cutting, the yield fror2 the 150-pound nitrogen appli-

cation from Uranite was significantly lower than 'orien's 38 or urea at

this rate. However, at the higher rate, no significant differences in

yields wore obtained botcen these nitrogen sources.

When all cuttings wero tabulated (Table 5), it wam found that the

source and rate of nitrogen had not ci-nificantly influenced total

yields. Ho-.:vor, the average yields for all nitrogen trcatrnentcs xcccded

thozo obtained urhcn nitrogen was oittcd. Tigiher yields of dry natorial

irorc obtained at the first cutting than at either of the other cuttings.

This increase in yield anounted to appro:d.'ately 80 per cent of the total

dry material for the 75- and 150-pound application rates for all nitrogen

sources. But when the rate of nitrogen application was increased to 225

pounds per acre, the to urea-form adehyde compounds produced approxi-

rnatly 70 per cent of the total yield at the first cutting, while urea

produced approximately 90 per cent.

Accumulative yields obtained from the three nillet cuttings are

shot graphically in Figure 3. The largest incrca-c occurred betwcn

the 75- and 150-poi'nd nitrogen application fro- urea, iwhcre approximately

33 per cent higher yields were obtained from the higher rate of nitrogen,

























































B CD A B C D A B C D
Treatments


Figure 3.


Total Yields of Hillet Gromn for 143 Days on Kanapaha
Fine Sand With Various Nitrogen Sources.


5 32












Other difference obtained between yields from all nitrogen sources were

minor, even ilcn the rate of nitrogen application was doubled or tripled.

The nitrogen uptake by millet for each cutting is shoun in Table 6.

tlen nitrogen ras applied at the rate of 75 pounds per acre, no signifi-

cant differences were noted between sources at the first cutting. There

were no differcnce in recovery with respect to source, nor did the re-

covery vary between non-treated and treated soils at any harvest. The

chock shows appro:inately 20 per cent more nitrcon uptake by millet at

the first cutting than that obtained from Borden's 38, whereas urea was

approx-inately 25 per cent higher than Urarite, 37 per cent higher than

rordon's 38, and one-third higher than soils receiving no nitrogen.

As the rate of applying nitrogen was increased to 150 pounds per

acre, no significant differences were found between treated and non-

treated soils at all cuttings, nor was any difference noted between

.ourcez. This did not change the order of recovery when the totals of

the three cuttings were concidorcd. The recovery front three sources at

the 1 0-pound per acre rate of application was in descending order as

follows: urea, Uramite, Borden's 38, and check. :illet removed nearly

twice as much nitrogen from the urea treated soils than from soils which

received no nitrogen, but only one-third nore from Uranite and Borden*s

38 than front the check mcils. Approximately 23 per cent more total

nitrogen uptake by millet was obtained from urea as compared with Eordcn's

38, while approximately 10 per cent more was removed from urea than front

soils rcceiving Urar-itc.











TABLS 6

Nitrogen Uptake by lillet From Applications of Urea and
Two Urea-Formaldehyde Co:pounds to Kanapaha Fine Sand
(Averanc of Two Replications)

Nitrogen Uptake
Rate Cuttings (2)
-1N(l) Source 1 2 Total(3)(4)
: t G:/ot Gns/Pot Gs/Pot G. 5/Pot

0.1663 Ur-:ite 0,1646 0.0168 0.0222 0.2036
Borden's 38 0.1268 0.0213 0.0259 0.1740
Urea 0.2298 0,0142 0.0292 0.2732

0.3326 Uramite 0.2559 0.0328 0.0204 0,3121
Borden's 38 0.2028 0.0221 0.0475 0.2724
Urea 0.2827 0.0232 0.0459 0.3518

0.4989 Uramite 0.2664 0,0484 0.0219 0.3367
Borden's 38 0,3285 0,0386 0.0456 0.4127
Urea 0.3546 0.0175 0,0195 0,3916
Check 0.1618 0,0100 0.0095 0.1813

D. Tukey (57) 5i Level 0.1487 0.0410 0.0410

(1) 0.1663 --ra:1m nitrogen pc-r pot .qua3l' 75 pounds per acre.
(2) Millet cuttings at 57, 103, and 143 days front planting,
respectively*
(3) Analysis of variance shows no significant difference between
treatments.
(4) Sun of three millet cuttin-..











Conparing recoveries from treated and non-treated soils at the 225-

pound per acre rate of application, recovery was significantly higher in

favor of all nitroogn sources at the first cutting, except Uranito,

uhile the second and third cuttings shox no ricnificant diCferences.

Co::'paricon betiren nitrogen sources reveals that recovery by millet was

not significant at all cutting3s. The total uptake by all cutting from

the various sources was in dcaccnding order as followrs: Borden's 38,

urea, Ur~ritc, and chock.

The grcrotct percentage of nitrocgn recovery was obtained at the

first cutting from all nitrogen sources when made at the three levels of

application. Approximately 80 per cent of the total nitrogen uptake nas

removed with the first harvcst, while cppro:riately 20 per cent of the

total was recovered in the last tto cutting-.

C.ccum-ulative nitrogen uptake by millet for all rates of application

is presented graphica1S y in Figure 4. As the rate of applying nitrocon

was doubled, the amount of nitrogen recovery was not increased in the

same ratio Even when the application was increased from 75 pounds to

225 pounds per acre, there was only appro:~natcly a 30 per cent increase

in the nitrogen uptake. At all rates of application, larger a.-ounts of

nitrogen were recovered from urea than Uranite. This was an increase of

ap:ro:dir-.toly 25 per cent for the low and high rate?, while the inter-

nediate rate resulted in an increase of 10 per cent. The amount of

nitrogen re-ov:cd from the urea treated soil was 35 per cent more than

that removed front Borden's 38 at the 75-pound per acre rate of applica-

tion. ihen the rate was doubled, an increase in recovery of approximately












A Urea
.45 B Uramite
C Borden's 38
D Check


A B C D


A B C D
Treatments


A E C D


Total Grams of Nitrogen Recovered by M.illet Grown
for 143 Days on Kanapaha Fine Sand With Various
Nitrogen Sources


.25



.20




.15


.10




.05


Figure 4.












20 per cent in favor of urea was obtained. Five per cent more nitrogen

was removed by millet from Borden's 38 than from the urea treated soil

when 225 pounds of nitrogen per acre were applied, More nitrogen was

recovered from Uramite than Borden's 38 at both the 75- and 150-pound

rate, but recovery was 20 per cent more from Pordenes 38 than from

Uranite at the high rate.

The average p1I values of the soil 143 days after treatment are pre-

sented in Table 7. No significant differences wero found bctccn soil

reactions at the low,rate of nitroCcn application. However, when 150

pounds of nitrogen were applied per acre, soils receiving Uramite and

urea had reactions which were significantly higher than the check, while

no differences were found between nitrogen sources, When Uranito was

applied at the rate of 225 pounds of nitrogen per acre, the soil had a

pH value significantly higher than all other treatr-nts, while no other

significant differences wore found. Applications of Uramite at the two

higher rates gave pH values which wore significantly above those from

the lower rate. No significant differences twre found between the three

rates of Borden's 38. However, the urea treatncnt had a significant :

difference in reaction in favor of the 150-pound rate over the 225-pound

nitrogen application. These data reveal that no trend was found in pH

values of this soil when treated with these materials and after growth

Of nillot for 143 days.

The total grams of nitrogen recovered from the soil after the last

harvest are shown in Table 7. No significant differences bctwcon treat-

rnnts wero shown for these data.











TABLE 7

Ecil Reaction and Total Nlitrocon of Kanapaha Fine
Sand Following Final Harvest of i llct(l)
(Average of Two Replications)

Rate Total
N(2) Source pH :Titrosen(3)
Gi-c/Pot G.z/Fot

0,1663 Ura-ite 6.36 2,4696
Borden's 38 6.76 2.5329
Urea 6,83 2.4108

0.3326 Uramite 7.16 2.3014
Borden's 38 6.59 2.5872
Urea 7.10 2,2491
0.493? Uranito 7.35 2.4108
Borden's 38 6.60 2.4407
Urea 6.33 2.4936
Check 6,38 2.3712

D. Tukey (57) 55 Level 0,54

(1) 143 days after treatment.
(2) 0.1663 grans nitrogen per pot equals 75 pounds per acre.
(3) Analysis of variance shows no significant differences between
troat:-"cnt s.












The per cent of the added nitrogen recovered by combined harvests

of millet in a period of 143 days is presented in Table 8. At the 75-

pound rate of nitrogen ppli cation, it can be seen that very little of

the added nitrogen was rc:oved by rillet from the two urea-forn-aldcl.ydo

treatments. The three rillet cuttings removed 13.41 per cent of the

nitrogen added as Uramite and 55.26 per cent of that added as urea, uhile,

apparently, not any of th. nitrogen applied as Borden's 38 was recovered.

However, when 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre there applied, the per cent

recovery of added nitrogen was increased for all nitrogen courccc. At

this rate, three cuttings of millet removed 39,23 per cent of the nitro-

gen added as Uranite, 27.39 per cent of that added from rordcn's 38, and

52.62 per cent from that added as urea, When 225 pounds per acre were

applied, the percontages of added nitrogen recoveries were less than 50

per cent from all nitrogen sources. The per cent recovery raneod front

31 to 46 per cent, with Uranite being the lowest, Lordcn's 38 the hlicict,

and urea inteo -cdiatc.

The per cent of the added nitrogen ror:aining in the soil after the

last harvest is also shown in Table 8. At the low rate of fcrtilizaticn,

97.23 per cent of the nitrogen added as Borden's 38 remained 143 days
after treatments were applied, while Ura-'ite had 5?.17 per cent and urea

23.81 per cent ro:aining. Tho-o high pcrcontagos of added nitrogen re-

::aining in the soil should have been expected from applications of the

two urea.formaldehyde compounds since srall amounts of the added nitrogen

rwre removed by the indicator crop* At the 150-pound per acre nitrogen

application, Eordon's 38 shows 64.94 per cent of the added nitrogen










TABL 8


Recovery of Added :itrogcn
Nitrcogn 2o-alninz in
Lfere Applied


Fron Several 'ourcos by Jillot, and
Soil 143 Days After Treatrents
to Kanapaha Fine Sand


Source


Urarite
Borden's 38
Urea

Uranito
Borden's 38
Urea

Ura-uite
Borden's 38
Urea

Check


"itrSc-n
Removed

Go/Pot


0.2036
0.1740
0.2732

0.3121
0.2724
0.3518


0.4127
0.3916

0.1813


RPcovery
Pry CMet(2)
Per Cent


13.41
-4.39
55.26

39*23
27.39
52.62

31.15
46.38
42.15


Nitrogen
Recco-orcd
In Soil
GC7s/Pot


2.4696
2.5329
2.4108

2.3814
2.5872
2.2491

2.4108
2.4407
2.4936

2.3712


Recovered
In Soil(2)
Per Cent


59.17
97.23
23,81

3.07
64.94
0.00

7.94
13.93
24.53


Total
Recovered
In Plants
&. Soil
Per Cent


72.58
92.84
79.07

42.30
92.33
52.62

39*09
60.31
66.68


(1) 0.1663 grans nitrogen per pot equals 75 pounds per acre.
(2) Calculations of per cent nitrogen recovered were as follows:


(, rcnoved frcn courco -(;;e ec:-od from check)
Gr-ic :; Added X 100.


Rate

Gr./Pot

0.1663



0.3326



0.49389


--~---r- --~~'i --I- --i --~ ---c-L--r^-- il ---L' -` ---- -- --- -11 I-1~ ~ --'-


--a


Per cent =











remained in the soil after the final cutting of nillet, while little or

none of the nitrogen added as Urnrite or urea rcniincd. When 225 pounds

per acre of nitrocgn were applied, 24.53 per cent of that added as urea

re-aincd, while 7.94 and 13.93 per cent remained of that added as Ur.- it"

and Borden's 38, respectively.

The combined per cent of the added nitrogen removed by three cut-

tings of millet and remaining in the soil 143 days after treatment is

show in Table 8. At the low and intermediate rates of nitrogen appli-

cation, the per cent recovery was about the same for urea and Uramite,

while rcrden's 38 was higher. At the low rate, the values ranged from

72.58 per cent and 79.07 per cent from Ur-aitc and urea, ufilo rordcn's

38 treated soils shcwod a recovery of 92.84 per cent. However, when the

application was increased to 150 pounds of nitrocgn per acre, 42.30 per

cent was recovered from Uranite, 52.62 per cent from urea, and 92.33 per

cent from FsrdCn'rs 38. Th'n the nitrogen application was increased to

225 pounds per acre, it was observed that 66.68 per cent of the nitrogen

added as urea was recovered, with Borden's 38 being intermediate with

60.31 per cent recovery, whereas only 3?.09 per cent of the nitrogen

added as Uramite was recovered.

From the total porcentages of nitrogen recoveries, it was revealed

that 100 per cent recovery was not obtained from any nitrogen source.

Loss of nitrogen ranged from 60.91 per cent from Urarmite at the 225-pound

rate of nitrogen application, to 2.77 per cent from the 75-pound nitrogen

rate added as Eorden's 38. Fincc this soil did not receive water in

amounts large enough to cause leaching, there rust have been a loss of












nitrogen by volatilization. This volatilization could have been as

nitrogen gan nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, or anr:onia.

Complete data for Greenhouse Experiments 1 and 2 are recorded in

Appendix Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Sun-ary

When oats and millet were grotn for a period of nearly eight months

in pots which received additions of nitrogen from amronium sulfate and

two urea-formaldehyde compounds, it was found that the total yields and

amounts of nitrogen recovered rre rcrr.tr from ammonium culfate than

either of the two urea-formaldehyde compounds. Yields obtained from

an-.oniun sulfate at rates of 100 pounds nitroccr. per acre were about one-

fourth greater than urea-formaldehyde treatments at equivalent rates.

However, wrhen nitrogen applications were doubled, the ammonium sulfate

treated pots only yielded about 13 per cent more than the two urea-

formaldehyde treatments. About 50 per cent nore nitrogen was removed

by the above-ground portion of oats and millet in 249 days from arnnonisi

sulfate treated pots than from Ura-ite or ?ordcn's 39 treatments.

ITHoMvcr, when comwparionz of yiold: and amounts of nitroC'gen re-

covered between urea, Uramite, and Borden's 38 wore made, it was found

that these courcoc of nitrogen yielded about the sane amount of dry

material and nitrogen recovered in 143 days.

1hoen nitroccn was deterrincd after the last harvest of the two ex-

periments, it was found that all of the added nitrogen ,as not accounted

for in plant growth and as that rerainin! in the coil. A rnnc of about

2 to 58 per cent of the added nitrogen could not be accounted for. 7inoe












no leaching occurred during these experiments, it can be stated that

there must have been a loss of nitrogen duo to volatilization.














LAORTATOr, E'TUDIE.;


!Iitrate Production Resulting From
Soil Applications of Biurot,
Urea, and Armonium Sulfate

Introduction and obi cgtive

It has been reported (21) that biurct is oxidised to nitrate ruch

clotcr than urea.

Three experiments were conducted to compare the rate of nitrifica-

tion of biurot, urea, and sJu-oniun sulfate in three Florida coils. The

soils used wore Arredondo fine sand previously lined to pIT 7.7, Lriigton

peat (pH 3.6), and Arrodondo fine sand (pH 5.5).

Experimental

Soil c w:pl6z roro sieved through a one-quarter inch sieve. After

sieving, the rineral soils were imigr:cid into pint ril: bottles and the

peat tcighed into quart jars. Trcat::cnts were made and moisture in the

soils was adjusted to approximately one-half of their uiatcr holding capa-

city, All containcr-c crc covered Trith aluXinu foil in an effort to

maintain good moisture within the soils. All sanples were incubated at

28 decreos C.

Choiiaical analyses of the soils were as follows: Nitrates were de-

tcr-incd by use of the phenoldisulfonic acid method (25). mannoniacal

nitrogen tas dctor.incd in the peat by extracting irith sodium chloride

and distilling with sodium hydroxrde as described by Jacl:ron (26), while

in the '-ineral soils it was dotcr:iincd by placing the sample in a

LC1











Kjoldahl flask, adding water and magnesium oxide and distilling into

boric acid (52), Soil p': values were dctorrined by using a 1:2 soil

water dilution and reading on a DBelckan zororatic p!H Zrter.

Exeriment 1. For this experirent, Arredondo fine cand (pH 7.7)

received nitrogen at rates of 150 and 300 pp-i as biuret, urea, and a-'

noniut sulfate. A series was included which did not include added

nitroCcn to serve as the control. One-half of the soil received calcium

carbonate at a rate equivalent to two tons per acre.

Tianty gransr of each saxplc wore removed at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and

40 days for nitrate dctoriinations. The piH values wore dctcrmined after

40 days of incubation.

E -p-rinnt 2. Three nitrogen sources, biuret, uroa, and anmonium

sulCate, wore added to Brighton peat. Nitrogen was applied to one-half

of the peat at 300 ppn. Line, as calcium carbonate, was applied at apl-

pro::irately four tons per acre to ono-half of the soil. I".tratcs, am-

monia, and pHl were detor:-incd following 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks of

incubation.

E::.criLncnt 3 Arredondo fine sand (pI 5.5) mws used in this ex.

perincnt. Nitrogen, as biuret, urea, and anr=oniun sulfate, was applied

at rates of 150 and 300 ppn. One serio without nitrogen served as con-

trol. Calciun carbonate was added at rates equal to two tons per acre

to one-half of the soil. iitrates were deternincd at 1, 2, 3, and 4

weeks. After four weeks ammonia and pH were also determined.

RP.ults and discu-sion

E::acriirnt 1. The average ppm nitrate nitrogen produced from addi-

tions of biuret, urea, and a---.oniur sulfate to Arredondo fine sand (pH 7.7)












follo;rins an incubation period of 40 days are choun in Table 9, 1IVicre

150 ppn nitrogen rero applied to an unli-.cd soil, the nitrification rate

of biuret was significantly lower for the 5- and 10-day incubation

period than the other nitrogen sources. HoXmver, the difference was

not simiificant at the 15. or 40-day periods. At 20 daysz incubation,

biuret nitrified at a cniLificantly higher rate than urea but signifi-

cantly lower than amoniun sulfate. After 30 days' incubation, nitrate

production was significantly higher .-o-i biurot and urea than from am-

moniu.- sulfate. The nitrate production in soils roccivinZ nitrogen

sources was significantly higher at all incubation periods than the choc:,

flion line and 150 ppm nitrogen were applied to the soil, the nitrate

produced from biuret tras significantly loror at the 5. and 10-day periods

than from urea or ammonium sulfate. At the 15-day incubation period, no

cicnificant difference in nitrate production ras notcd between courcos.

Incubating for 20 days produced sicgificantly fcoer nitrates fron- biurct

and urea than amironium sulfatc, whilo no difference was found betmwen

urea and biuret. Biuret produced significantly more nitrates than urea

or ammonium sulfate after 30 days' incubation, but after 40 days no cig-

nificant differences vrre observed. iynificant differences were found

in favor of the nitrogen treatments over the check at all incubation

pericdls except one, which vas at 5 days. No difference was observed

bctwcon the biuret and check trcatm.cnts at this incubation period.

FolloZring additions of 300 pp- nitroCen, it was found that nitrate

production from n r-oniur, sulfate was cignificantly highcr than from

biurct after 10 and 30 days of incubating. However, no significant









TABLI 9


Rate
ppn
ppn


:oil Rcaction and Nitrate Nitrogen Produzcd Fro:i Applications of
Biuret, Urea, and Amroniur Sulfate in Arredondo Fine Sand
(Averace of Three Rcplicationn)

.. ..... . .I. Day s.. .


Source


0 150 Biuret
Urea

Check

2 150 Biuret
Urea

Check
0 300 Biurot
Urea

Check

2 300 Biuret
Urea
(CIh)2s0a4
Check


9.00
15.80
19.80

5.60

7.00
17.40
23.48

4.60

7.80
4.80
10.00

3.80

7.00
5.20
12.00

5.00


Rate
CaCOn/


ppnF
28.01
27.59
36.46

7.49
27.79
28.97
47.89

5.52

17.15
5.32
26.41

5.52
16.95
4.73
23.45

5.71


20
ppM
68.65
49.01
93.35

5.83

70.40
83.62
118.82

5.64

25.09
5.44
40.26

6.22

26.83
4.28
42.78

5.44


D. Tukey (57) 5, Level 5.06 7.43 24.19 14.39 9.01 55.86 0.3


10
ppn
14.85
33.60
44.'54

5.86

15.43
36.14
39.07

5.27
16.60
6.45
44.73

7.23

13.87
6.25
45.32

6.05


0 ..O
ppm
117.33
118.60
105.27

7.65
123.50
108.01
118.80

8.43


37.25
5.49
48.03

8.23

38.82
4.31
49.40

6.27


40
pp
121.70
111.27
119.77

9.66

116.29
117.06
117.06

11.59

60.85
6.57
65.68

9.66

56.02
5.22
65.68

9.66


7.3
7.3
7.2

7.5

7.5
7.3
7.3

7.7
7.6
8.1
7.0

7.6

7.6
8.1
7.1

7.7


1- --- ~ -- ......-~ "-











differences vero observed for biuret and aTZoniur sulfate aiftor 5, 15,

20, and 40 days. Nitrate production in the control ims significantly

lower at all incubation periods, except the first, when corparcd with

soil receiving biuret and anmonium sulfate. serover, then 300 ppa

nitrogen as urea wero applied to this soil, nitrate production was not

different from the control at all incubation periods. This failure of

nitrate production was, no doubt, due to the high initial pl1 of the

soil, and as anronia was released from the urea the phi was raised above

the threshold value for nitrification (43).

Nitrate production from applications of 300 ppm nitrogen as armo.

nium sulfate and lime was significantly higher than from biuret at the

sane rate of application for periods of 10, 20, and 30 days' incubation,

but not significant for the 5-, 15-, and 40-day incubation periods.

Iitrates produced front biurot were not significantly different from the

check treatment at the 5-, 15-, and 40-day incubation periods, but were

significantly higher at all other incubation periods. The amsonium sul-

fate treated soil produced significantly higher nitrates than the control

soil at all periods. Again, when urea was applied at this high rate, no

significant differences 'core found between urea and check treatments.

The rate of nitrate production in soils receiving biuret was about

50 per cent lower for the first 10 days of incubation than in soils re-

coiving the other nitrogen sources at 150 ppm nitrocon. However, after

this initial period, the nitrate production front biuret increased and

nearly equaled or equaled that produced from the other natcrials,











The production of nitrates after 40 days was higher for all nitro-

gen sources ;hen nitrogen was added at 150 pp.: inztcad of 300 ppm and,

as expected, since the original soil pH TIs 7.7, no differences were

found in nitrate production in lincdc ad unlincd soils.

No differences in soil p1f values occurred betcon!l the biurcL, urea,

or chock treatments whcn 150 pp:- nitro-cn ware added, but when n;urnoniu:

sulfate eas added, the pH values were significantly lowcr than the check

treatment for the limed series (Table 9), Tahen the rate of adding

nitrogen was increased to 300 ppm, the piH values of the control and

biuret trcatcd soils were not si mificantly different, wh'il the values

for soils receiving n-g -oniun culfate cr e significantly lower than those

rccciving biurot and also lower than the control. The values for the

urea treated coils tore significantly hiighcr than those observed for any

of the other soils rcceiving 300 ppm nitrocgn. Co-.parisons of pH values

betwomn the limed and unlined series shol that sources rocoiving the

same rate of nitrogen were not significantly different. The highest pH

value, 8.1, found after 40 days of incubation, was where 300 ppn nitro-

gen had been added as urea.

Ermcrinnt 2. Nitrification studies of biurot, urea, and ar~oniu:

culfatc rore conducted in an acid peat. Data recorded from this experi-

ment included nitrate production, armonia nitrogen, and pH of the incut-

bating peat at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks. The average ppm nitrate produced

from the treate-nts at the different incubation periods are recorded in

Table 10, At the 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-uzcek incubation pcrlods there were

no significant dicffcrenceo in nitrate production fro:, urea and biuret











TABLE 10


Nitrate Nitrogen Produced From Applications of
Biurot, Urea, and Anwoniun Sulfate to Peat
(Average of Three Roplicationr)

N!itrat. Nitrogen


Rate
CacOs
tons/a


Rate

ppm


Source


0 300 Biuret
Urea
(Chc)2s04
Chcck:


S1 2
ppn ppmn ppn


58.42
65.72
43.33


100.70
125.15
59.46


131.80
167. 3
78.23


39.92 61.38 83.44 88.67 111.48


4 300


Biuret
Urea
(in!44) 2%0


Check


41.87 58.50 73.49 98.00 113.24


D. -Tukey (57) 5J Level 10.43 92.81 24.55 42.17 32.19


4
ppm

152.60
163.33
70.93


6
ppm
197.84
218.11
87.25


59.39
57.93
63.77


104.53
139.05
119.88


183.95
225.20
206.23


195.53
259.00
227.27


257.77
323.87
223.62


_.___ r,---- _. .i I ~-. I-











where line was omitted fron the treatment. The nitrates produced from

urea after 3 weeks were significantly higher than those produced from

applications of biuret. Without li:c, nitrato production from biuret

and urea was cimnificantly higher than from ammonium sulfate trcatr:nte

at all incubation periods, except at the second week where no differences

were found for those nitrogen sources There were no cicnificant dif-

fercnces betecen chock and aEmmonium cu3.fato treatr.ents at all incubation

periods. Significantly more nitrates were produced from biuret and urea

in peat than were found in the check at all incubation periods, c::ccpt

the second iwek where no significant differences were found between

nitrogen treatments and the check. The nitrification of biuret in un-

li ed, acid peat i-as at a slower rate than urea for all periods of

incubation. The production of nitrates in peat rcceiving urea was

about onc-fifth greater than where biuret was added aftor 1, 2, and 3

weeks of incubation, but only about 10 per cent greater after the fifth

and sixth weeks of incubation. Ammonium sulfate was nitrified in acid

pcat at a slower rate than either urea or biur.t. This relationship

was observed at all incubation periods throughout the experiment and

varied from approximately 25 per cent at the beginning to 50 per cent

at the end.

Mhen the acid peat was lined, the rate of nitrification incrcaced.

At the end of six 7weks' incubation, zcinificantly more nitrates were

produced front urea than from biuret. While no significant differences

were found between nitrogen sources at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks of incuba-

tion, at the second incubation period 25 per cent more nitrates were











produced from urea than front biuret. Significant differences 17cro found

bot~men the check treatment and nitrogen sources for all incubation

periods, except the second week where those nitrogen sources and check

trcatncnts were not sufficiently different for significance. Also, sig-

nificant differences occurred in favor of the addition of line to the

acid peat.

Suraarizing data in Table 10, the nitrification rate of biurot mas

sloTcr than that of urea at the first 3 ucoks of incubation and after

this the two materials were nitrified at nearly equal rates, Amroniu

sulfato, without line, oxidized at slower rates than either urea or

biuret. Uihen line was added to the acid peat, the rate of nitrification

of biuret was about the same as that for urea or ameoniun sulfate after

1 woek of incubation, but after the first week the rate of nitrification

clorcd and did not reach that of urea or anmonium sulfate at any tine

during the reriaining 5 teeks of incubation.

Average ppm aronia nitrogen found during the several incubation

periods are presented in Table 11. After 6 weeks the highest amount of

ar-.onia nitrocgn was found where additions of arrmonium sulfate had been

nSdo to unlimed peat. This high amount was expected since fewer nitrates

were produced from this treat-nnt than any of the othor trcatnents. The

amount of as.onia found from applications of biurct on unlieod peat was

significantly lower than the armoniuv sulfate and urea treatments at all

incubation periods, except the first week. But with additions of lime,

significantly lower amounts of anmronia nitrogcn were found in the biuret

treated peat than the wnmoniu: sulfate treatncnt at all incubation











TABLE 11


Ammonia Ilitrogen Produced From Applicationr of
Biuret, Urea, and Arn-oniurm 'ultate to Peat
(Average of Three Replications)

S Armonia Nitrogen
Rt Raato feeks
CaCO? N Source 1 2 4 6
tonsa pp ppm ppm ppn ppa pp:r
0 300 Biuret 182 156 154 163 195
Urea 231 251 284 327 292
(mU1)2S04 304 311 403 419 455
Check 85 72 83 93 130
4 300 Biuret 158 132 107 128 162
Uricr 194 203 225 2.22 179
(NI4)2s04 219 227 225 257 195
Check 85 72 83 93 108

D. Ti:ey (57) 5 Level 169 83 107 103 98











periods, crccpt the 1- and 6-wook periods, w-hile ammonia nitrogen from

the urea treatment ;ras significantly higher at the third week only. The

amount of arxonia found was lower with additions of lime than without

line. This was probably due to the grcatbr nitrification rates which

were found when additions of line had boon 1ade to the acid peat*

If the nitrogen found as nitrate and as.onia was added, it would be

noted that at all incubation periods less nitrogcn was found fron biuret

than from urea or a-T-oniu. sulfate. After 6 weeks' incubation, in-

creases of about 25 per cent rnrc nitrate and arnonin nitrofgn were

found in the unlined series front urea and ar.oniun sulfate over biuret,

while in the limed series an increase of about 15 per cent was found.

The average pH values of the peat at the end of each incubation

period are reported in Table 12. As e-oected, with additions of line

the pi! values increased. !cor no lime was applied, the hihost pH

value was obtained at the second week of incubation with the urea treated

peat, rhile the lowest pIH was recorded for the am~oniwu sulfate treated

peat at the third wvm'c of incubation. Tith the addition of lime, the p1l

values steradily decreased from a high of 4.5 at the bcinning of the

c:~eribncnt to 44~ at the end.

SExpriient 3. This o:rpcrincnt tas deosiicnd to determine the nitri-

fication rate of b t uot, urea, and ramonium crlfate in an Arrcdondo fine

sand, pH 5.5. T!itratoos ere detcr:;ned at 1, ^, 3, and 4 weeks. A~-.onia

and pH values were dctcrr-ined after 4 vcc':c' incubation. The average ppn

nitrate nitrogen for the 4 incubation periods are reported in Table 13.

At all incubation periods the coil which received an added nitrogen











TABLE 12

pH Values at the End of Each Incubation Period
With 300 PPM Iitrogen APdded as Biurot,
Urea, and A eonium Sulfate to Peat

Ratc Rate Weeks
CaC.O 'I Furcc 1 2 4 6
tons a plzp

0 300 Biuret 3.7 3.6 3.6 3*7 3.6
Urea 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.6
(I-:.)2o 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.7
Check 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6

4 300 Biuret 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1
Urea 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.1
(m14)2S04 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1
Check 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2


0,15 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12


"


D. Tuhoy (57) 51, Level











TABLE 13

Nitrate Ilitrogen Produced i'roi Applications of Biurot,
Urea, and Anr oniu Sulfate in Arredondo Fine P nd
(Avcramg of Tihroo Replications)
Hitratei Ultron__
R.to Rate Weeks
CaCO Source re1 2 .
tons/a pip ppm ppm ppm ppM
0 150 Biuret 19.40 36.89 94.12 115.24
Urea 71.24 96.78 110.38 111.83
(NH4) S04 24.74 62.48 71.02 74.44
Check 13.56 19.22 18.43 21.00
2 150 miurct 22.84 77.39 101.65 100.73
Urea 65.58 101.24 108.67 97.15
(OT)2SO4 67.64 115.83 92.41 91.17
Check 16.83 23.51 25.33 28.51
0 0 0 Biuret 20.95 33.81 61.09 104.83
Urea 66.95 136.25 153.85 142.39
(N)H)2C-0 23.18 43.22 71.53 76.15
Check 13.22 19.22 18.48 20.49
2 300 Biuret 23.52 46.85 137.59 168.34
Urea 42.06 61.60 62.29 59.76
(1n4)2s04 63.86 135.39 158.48 162.54
Chcczk, 16.48 23.51 25.35 28.51

D. Tukey (57) 5, Level 11.34 31.62 25.09 43.07











source produced more nitrate nitrogen than the untreated soil. However,

no significant differences were found in nitrates botuccn the check vnd

biuret treatments after I and 2 weeks incubation. Hitrate production

was not significant between 300 pp nitrogen added as =anoniu-i cvulfate

to a lined soil, and the check at the 2-week incubation period, while

nitrates produced from urea at this rate, and the choc!: wcre not signi-

ficant after 4 eeoks' incubation.

!T:en 150 ppi nitrogen were added without lime, urea produced signi-

ficantly higher nitrates than biuret or ar-noniur- sulfate after the 1- and

2-week incubation periods, while biuret and ammonium sulfate were not

significantly different. Urea produced significantly higher nitrates

than am.onium sulfato after 3 ieeks' incubation, with no other differ-

ences betucen sources occurring at this incubation period. No signifi-

cant differences were found botucen nitrogen sources after 4 weeks'

incubation.

When lime and 150 ppm nitrogen ere addod, urea and ammonium sulfate

produced ci-nificantly more :itrates than biuret after a 1-vrcek incuba-

tion p-r:icd, thile only a-:oniu'; sulfate was Czi- ificantly higher than

biuret after 2 weeks' incubation. After the third week of incubation,

nitrate production from those nitrogen sources was not icrStificantly

different. Ho riCnificn t differences were found for nitrate production

of the nitrogen sources after 4 woeks' incubation. Co-p.arisons between

limed and iunlirecd coils rccoiving 150 ppn nitrogen rcve l that only the

li:.cd soil rccoivinr amxaonite csilfatc prolucc-d more nitratec. than the

unlimed soil rcccil-inmg the came nitrogen: source*











At the low rate of nitrogen application, the nitrification rate of

biurot was nuch cloie'r than that of urea or am. onium sulfate for the

first 2 oeeks of incubation. Urea produced about 60 per cent more ni-

trates than biuret at both the first and second weeks of the incubation

period in the unlined soil. Howcver, after 3 ircohl the rate of nitrifi-

cation of biurct tnas ncnlry as rapid as that of urea mand e::ccoded the

rate of amroniun sulfate by about one-fourth. With additions of line,

the rate of nitrification of biurct was slower than urea or amsonium

sulfate at the 1- and 2-.wek incubation periods, but after 3 w~oes'

incubation all nitrogen sources produced appro:ibiately the same amount

of nitrates.

Applications of 300 ppn nitrogen in unlimed soils gave sictificantly

rorc nitrates from urea than from biuret and amnoniuim sulfate at all in-

cubation periods, c:;ccpt the fourth ooel: whiro urea and biurct were not

significant. The greatest difference in the rate of nitrification be-

twcen biuret and as=oniu sulfate occurred at the 4-week incubation

period where biuret produced nitrates at a higher rate than axronitn

sulfate. Significant differences between the check and nitrogen sources

:oro found for all periods of incubation, except the first reek where

the biuret and control did not differ, and the cccond wcck of incubation

where nitrates front biuret or auonium sulfate owre not significantly

higher than the control.

When nitrogen was applied at the rate of 300 ppm to a limed soil,

significantly more nitrates were produced fro:: am-onitus sulfate than from

urea or biurot during the first ieek of incubation, while nitrate











production fron biuret tas significantly lower than that produced from

urea during this period. nitrate produced fron anionium sulfate was

significantly higher after 3 oreks than that produced from biuret or

urea. During this same period biuret produced significantly rore nitrate

than uroa. NIo ciCificant differences cre observed in nitrate produc-

tion from biuret and aEr-oniun sulfate after 4 weeks, but nitrate produc-

tion from urea was significantly locor than from the other 2 courccs.

No significant diffcrcnce mas found in nitrate production in the control

and biuret treated soil after 1 and 2 weeks' incubation, while the other

sources produced nitrates scinificantly higher than the control. At all

othcr incubation periods, nitrate production was significantly higher

in the soils receiving nitrogen than in the control, except after the

fourth week where urea and the chock wmre not significantly different.

Again, comparisons bcteccn biuret d the th other nitroccn sources

reveal that the nitrification rate of this compound is sloemr than urea

or annonium sulfate during the first part of the incubation period.

Ho.-cvcr, as the length of incubation is incrcaced, the nitrification

rate of biurot is about the sa s the se tt fthe other 2 nitrogen sources.

The pH values of the soil after 4 weeks' incubation are reported in

Table 14. As expected, ciCnificant differences yore noted lotucen the

lined and unlined soils. In both series the soils irithout nitrogen had

pHI values significantly higher than those which received nitrogen. With

applications of 150 pp:i nitrocon to unlix;cd soils, no significant differ-

ences wore found botueen sourco. When this sace application rate ias

used on limed soil, a'nonium sulfate reduced the pH significantly lower

than biuret or urea.











TABIL 14

Soil Reaction and Arnonia Iitrogen of Arredondo
Fine Sand Four Weeks After Trnat~i-nt With
Diurct, Urea, and r".:-oniu i Sulfate
(A',crage of Three c-plications)


Rate

ppr


150


Source


Biurot
Urea
(:in.)2 0%


Check


150


Biuret
Urea
(IM14)2so4


oH


4.7
4.8
4.5

5.7
6.3
6.5
6.0


Check


Biuret
Urea
(111)2S04
Chock

Biurot
Urea

Check


5.3
4.9
4.5

5.7
6.3
6.5
5.3
7.0


D. Tukoy (57) 5c Levol 0.4 27.0


Rate

tons/a


20.0
21.2
5C.9

14.1

16.5
23.6
10,6

14.1


84.7
24.4
201.3


14.1

22.4
67.1
25.8
14.1











The pH of the unlimed soil after receiving 300 ppm nitrogen as

biuret was significantly higher than the pH of soils receiving the same

amount of nitrogen as urea or ammonium sulfate. In turn, the pH value

of the urea treated soil was significantly higher than the pHI of the

ammonium sulfate treated soil.

The ppm armonia nitrogen found after 4 :col:c' incubation are shomu

in Table 14. hcn applied at the rate of 150 ppn nitro-cn to unlimed

oils,, significantly more rau-onia nitrogen was found in am-.oniuw sulfate

treated soil than in soils receiving biuret or urea. to siLCnificant

differences were found between sources wvhen 150 ppn nitrogen were added

to lined soil. Additions of 300 ppn nitrogen as a,-ronniun sulfate to un-

li.ned soils resulted in significantly higfor annonin nitrogen recovery

than was the case wlherc biuret or urea was the nitrogen scoirce. IHoever,

significantly more ammonia nitrogen was found in the urea treated soil

when the application was made in lined soil. Ammonia nitrogen was cic-

nificantly lower in the check soils than in unlined soils recciving

biurct and urea at the 300 pCpn nitrogen rate and ammonium sulfate at both

nitrogen rates. But when the soil -as limed, only where 300 ppm nitroccn

as urea were -aded was ammonia nitrogen significantly greater than the

control,

Complete data for L-boratory Ei:cri:innts 1, 2, and 3 are recorded

in Appendix Table 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16,


The nitrification rates of biurot, urca, and a. :oni culfate were

compared in three soils, The rate of nitrification of biurot was much











slower than that of urea or amonium sulfate during the early part of

the incubation period in an Arr.dondo fine sand with a high initial pH.

Fifty per cent more nitrates Cre formed from the latter two sources

than fro- the former in ten days then 150 ppa nitrogen were uscd,

When 300 ppm nit:rocgn wore applied to this soil as urea, Ice- ni-

trate was fomoed than n en the soil received no nitrorcn. The reason

for this was due, undoubtedly, to the high pH values resulting from the

high level of urea application. The p"l after 40 days was 8.1 which is

above the threshold pH value for nitrification as ctablishcd by irttin

ct al. (43). But h-cn the source of this high rate of nitrogen was an-

moniun sulfate and biuret, 30 per cent less nitrates were produced from

biuret than amnonium sulfate after five days' incubation, while n pprodi-

mately 65 per cent more nitrates were produced front aro--niun sulfate than

biuret after ten days' incubation. After forty days' incubation, the

nitrates produced from biuret were about the sane as those produced from

a~monium sulfate.

lihen these sane nitrogen sources were added to unlined acid peat,

the rate of nitrification of urea was 11 per cent nore rapid after one

rco:i than that of biurct. Houmcvr, after the acocond nd third weeks the

rate of nitrification of biurot was 20 per cent less tlian that of urea

and 50 per cent more rapid than amrmonium sulfate. With applications of

line to the peat, after one week of incubation the production of nitrate

was about the same for all sources. But after the second werc: the poat

receiving urea produced 20 per cent more nitrate than biuret treated

peat and this increase, in favor of urea, continued after the third,











fourth, and sixth weeks of incubation. Ariionium sulfate treated peat

produced 10 per cent more nitrates during the last four incubation periods

than biuret. Less ammoniacal nitrogen was produced from biuret than urea

or anmoniau sulfate at all periods of incubation. Approximately 35 per

cent rore a-.nonia nitrocgn was found from urea additions to unlined peat

than front biuret, iwile there tas an increase of 50 per cent more ammonia

in the annonium sulfate treated peat. HTc.vcr, when the peat was limed,

there vas only approximately 10 per cent more =rnronia nitrogen in the urea

and xr.oniur sulfate treated peat than that found from biuret treatments.

The pH values for this peat after each period of incubation chow very

small differences between nitrogen sources. :Io rvcr, as expcetcd, lyinSi

increased the pH values of all treatmrents.

1lhen applications of biurot, urea, and arn-oniuri culfato were r-ade

to Arredondo fine sand (pH1 5.5), it was found that 65 per cent more ni-

trates mwro produced front applications of 150 ppm nitrogen from urea

treatments than biuret treatr:ontL after one and two weeks of incubation.

But after the third and fourth weeks, the rate of biurot nitrification

was .rbsut the same as that from urea treated noils. ilth a;: o--niw. sul-

fate treatments, the nitrates produced mwre about 40 per cent higher than

those from biuret after two weeks' incubation, but after this incubation

period the biurot produced nitrates as wrll as a-.oniuml silfatc.

Uhen 300 pp- nitrogen e.re applied, the highest nitrification rate

occurred with urea treatnonts in the unlined series where appro::rin.tly

75 per cent more nitrates wre produced than from soils treated with

biurct. However, in the li:ed coil, both anmoniun rulfate and urea












produced rore nitratco than biurot after the first two woks of incuba-

tion. Again, in this soil after four weeks' incubation, p! values did

not shio any great variation between nitroCon sources, but significant

differences between the limed.and unlined series w re found* Ar:oniacal

nitrogen determinations after four weeks' incubation revealed that the

greatest amounts of am-onia vore found when a'noniu. sulfate was applied

at a rate of 300 ppm nitrogen to the lined coil. !To other siCnificant

differences w rre noted.

From- the results of the above, it can be expected that the rate of

nitrification of biurct irill be slower than that of urea or a--onium sul-

fate fo-- the first two r:ec!:h follmring application, but aftcr thick initial

period the nitrification rates of the three nitrogen sources will be about

the same.


Irubeor of Microorganisns in Arrodondo Fine Sand
receiving Various V.ntcs of iaruct,
Urea, and .Annoniu1 !-..ulfate

Introduction and objective

Since biuret is a compound toxic to higher plants, it tras thought

that some effect rniht be found on the number of microorganisms in soils

to irhich this cor-pound had been applied.

To obtain infornaticn on this point, biuret, urea, and a.noniun sul.

fate wore applied to Arredondo fine sand and the nur-ber of microorganisms

determined after one and two weeks.

Egeri: ontal

Theo soil sEles used in this xpecrinent were from two of the repli-

cations from the nitrification study in Arredondo fine sand (pH 5.5).











Thrcc levels of nitrogen tore used, 0, 150, and 300 ppm. Line as cal-

cium carbonate was used at levels equivalent to 0 and 2 tons per a-ro.

The numbers of bacteria (actinorrjtes inclucdd) and funwi were deter.

mined at the end of the first and second weeks of incubation. A tcn-gran

aliquot of soil (oven-dry basis) was used in the plating procedures.

Bacteria were plated on soil extract agar at a dilution of 1:100,000 and

fungi wore plated on rose beng-al agar at a dilution of 1:1,000 (2). Tach

dilution was plated in quintuplicate. The nicroorg:niisns .rcre counted

as soon as good growth occurred on the plates.

Results and discussion

The vor~ r.s nunbcrs of orgnie=.! at ccch plating are sho~m in Table

15. nTo siLcificnnt differences tere obtained betuctn treatments. How-

ever, even though not significant, in nost cases the number of fungi

wair increased -with additions of nitrogen as compared to the check treat-

r.ints. Alco, in nost cases the nurbcr of fungi -was louwr at the second

week than at the first week. A difference of appro-sinatcly 10 per cent

was noted beLrccn the first and second :cecks when biuret was applied to

a lined .:oil, but rith 150 pp-. nitrogen as biuret applied to an unlined

soil, there was appro:rinatoly 30 per cent difference in the number of

fungi between the one- and tro-week incubation pcriodc.

The bacteria choir an increase in nu bers in favor of the nitrogen

treatments in most instances. Also, there is a noticeable decrease in

numbers at the ,c:-cnd 1:oe&: ilhon compared to the first vree. Ilcarly all

birret troxat-:cntz show greater numbers of bacteria than all other

treatcen s.











TABLE 15

Ilu-tcr of :icroorganisms in Arredondo Fine :and
After One and Two Wleeks of Incubation tWith
Biurot, Urea, and Arrnoniur ::lftc


urct

Biutret
Urea

Chcck
(OnP)2!7o4


..iurot
Urea
(nk)2S04
Chccl:

Biurot
Urea
(N11)2 04
Check

Biuret
Urea
(:i:R)2o;


Fungi(1)
Th:ous.ld./C::;
0.D1. .oil
1 2


46.2
44.6
41.2

34.7
38.2
56.9
37.3
44.1

38.2
64.5
40.9

34.8

43.9
34.1
50.6
44.2


32.3
19.7
32.9

30.9

34.8
35,1
40.5

32.2

35.2
25.6
35.3

30.9

35.9
20.8
36.4
32.2


Pactcria(l)
(Actino: 'yctc
Included)
Mnllions/Gm
O.D. Foil
U1cc!:2
1 2


5.09
3.60
3.67
3.63

4.82
3*93
4.66

3.86

5.33
4.97
4.10

3.64

3.98
4.38
3.79
3.a6


4.94
4.20
3.53
3.71

3.90
2.79
4.17

3.75
4.42
3.64
4.53

3.71
3.58
1.86
3.65

3.75


(1) analysis of variance shcrs no cignificnce for treat'-.nns.


Rate

on
0


Rate
N

150
150


150


300


300











Complete data for this c-pcrinent are recorded in Appendix TablCe

17 and 18,


The numbers of ricroorganis-= in an Arredondo fine rnd treated with

biru't, urea, and n ar-oniui: sulfate Trc dctcor-inold, do rinificant dif-

_krrcnccr werre found. HIorvcr, there mias a clitht increase, in the nitbeors

of organism in soils receiving nitrogen wihen col par-cd to check treat-

ments. iulbers of bacteria increased with application of biurct rhecn

co.mparcd to other nitro7cn troatnents.














G:IED?.AL DI CU:SIO:I


Experincnts were designed to compare the availability of nitrogen

from urea-formaldehyde compounds, urea, and ammooniun sulfate. Kanapaha

fine sand was used in twm experiments, The first experiment was con-

duct.cd in four-gallon pots using Ura-itc, Borden's 38, and :an-oniun sul-

fate as the nitrogen sources. With applications of 100 pounds per acre

of nitrogen, the total yields from two cuttings of oats and three rillct

cuttings oreo about 20 per cent nore from armonium sulfate than fror;

either of the two urea-formaldclydoe troatrcnts. nWen 200 pounds of

nitrogen per acre wore applied, the total yields were only about 13 per

cent more in favor of the ar-.oniui: sulfate treatment. At both rates of

nitrogen application the highest yields for all nitrogen sources wore

found at the first millet cutting. !Nillet cuttings 249 dayc after ap-

plication of nitrogen troatoent ,hoi th thtthe yields from the urea-

formaldehyde compounds are about the same as those obtained froa armo-

nium culfatc,

then the amount of nitrogon removed by the plants was determined,

it mws found that about 50 per cent more nitrogen was removed from the

ammionium sulfate treatments than fro: the urea-forialdohydo treated soil.

Also, the amount of nitrogen removed from the plants uas about the cane

from awnoniur sulfate treatncnts at the last harvest of millet I'hcn ni-

trogen applications were made at rates of 100 pounds per acre. however,

when the rates wmre increased to 200 pounds per acre, about 60 per cent











r.or nitrogen was removed by the last cutting from the azrionium sulfate

trcatncnt than from urea-formaldehydc treated soils. From yield data

and nitrogen recovery in this experiment, it can be said that the urea-

formaldehyde coripounds are nitrogen sources which give lower yields

than amioniur sulfate when applied to Kanapaha fine sand.

The results of the yield data found in this c::pcrincnt wore in

arcronent with those found by Clark (12) and Scarabrook (55). lioucvor,

Kralovec and corgan (40) and I:uscor et al. (46) found a uniform release

of nitrogen from urea-formaldehyde co.-pounds over the gro'ring season.

The release of nitrogen from this experiment, measured by plant uptake,

was not uniform from the two urea-formaldelhde compounds used. However,

this non-uniformity could have been duo to the types of plants grotm.

The indicator crops for this experiment were oats and millet, while turf

was the indicator crop wihcr uniform nitrogen release was previously

reported.

Determination of pH values after the final cutting chouird that urea-

formaldehyde compounds did not affect the reaction of the soil 249 days

after treatments were made, !Io::cvor, the ar-oniu-i sulfate treated soils

had pH values lower than the check or other treatmerrts, which was

c:pccted.

H'cn total nitrogen ias determined on the soil after the last cut-

ting, it was found that all of the added nitrogen could not be accounted

for. From about 30 to 50 per cent of the added nitrogen was neither

renovcd by plants nor remained in the coil. Since no leaching occurred

during the entire grocring period, it is asnsut.d that this nitror-n loss











occurred as a result of volatilization. These nitrogen losses which

were encountered are within the range reported by other workers

(28,49,61,63).
When comparisons between urea, Uranite, and Borden's 38 were nado,

it was found that the total yields of three millet cuttings were about

the same for all nitrogen sources. However, Scarsbrook (55) found lower

yields from urea-formaldehyde compounds than from other sources Since

this experiment lasted for only 143 days and one-gallon pots were used,

this could have accounted for yields that were about the same for all

nitrogen sources.

IIitrogen removed from urea was about 30 per cent greater than that

removed from either urea-formaldehyde compound when 75 pounds nitrogen

per acre were applied. But as the rate of nitrogen application was in-

creased to 150 pounds per acre, only about one-fifth nore nitrogen was

removed by millet from urea treatments than from urea-fornaldehyde
treated soils. Yields and nitrogen uptake from this experiment were

very high 57 days after treatments were nade, but cuttings at 103 and
143 days after treatments were applied were only about one-tenth as much

as those obtained at the first cutting. Again, this early release of

nitrogen from urea-formaldehyde compounds does not agree with other
workers (40,46). However, the indicator crops used by the other workers

were turfs, while millet was used as the indicator crop in this research.

The pH values of the potted soil 143 days after fertilizer applica-

tions show no significant differences between treatments. Again, in

this experiment when total nitrogen was determined on the soil after the











last harvest, it was found that all of the added nitrogen could not be

accounted for, From about 15 to 50 per cent of the added nitrogen was

lost, No leaching occurred so the only .y that this nitrogen could have

been lost was through volatilization, This was in acgrcr:cnt with other

workers (40,61,63).

From the data of the two experiments comparing Urarmite and Borden's

38 3.ith ant~oniun sulfate and urea, it can be said that yields and

nitrogen recovery are not increased by ur1a-formaldciydo compounds.

Also, it seems that since urea-formaldehyde compounds are expensive per

unit of nitrogen, with no increase of yields or nitrogen recoveries by

these compounds, it would be better to fertilize with some cheaper

source of nitrogen. Even if leaching occurred, it probably would be more

ccno:-ical to fertilize several tines with a source of nitrogen which is

less expensive, since these experiments indicate that it requires about

trice as much nitrogen from urea-formaldehyde compounds than from urea

or azmioniua sulfate to produce the same yield, Scarsbrook (55) also re-

ports that it requires about twice as much nitrogen from Urea-Forms as

when nitrogen is applied as ammonium nitrate.

The rate of nitrification from biuret, an impurity of pelleted urea,

was co-mprcd with urea and arnoniun culfatc, Fron: tlhrco eporinnnts it

was found that the rate of nitrification from biuret was about 50 per

cent less than that obtained from urea or amoniiu. Culfatc during the

first tw;o imcl:: of incubation. This slow nitrification from biuret

agroec with the statement of Gull (21). However, after two weeks the

rate of nitrate production from biurot, urea, and ammonium sulfate was











about the same. A reason for this slow nitrification during the first

two weeks could be that biuret is not readily converted to amronia,

.hicn ammonia was dotcr; ined at weekly intervals on an acid peat which

had applications of biuret, urea, and an. onium sulfate, it was noted

that urea troaticicts had about 20 per cent more a.mmonia than biuret

treated peat. IJhen urea was applied to an alkaline Arrodondo fine sand

and additional lime was added, no nitrates wore produced. T:e pHt values

after 40 days' incubation were 8.1 and this value is higher than the

previously reported threshold value for nitrification. The pll value

of an acid peat or an Arredondo fine sand (initial pHI 5.5) were not sic-

nificantly different after four weeks' incubation ir.th treatments of

urea or axioniun sulfate.

The nur:bers of microorganirms vore deterrincd on an Arredondo fine

sand treated with biuret, urea, and anr:onium sulfate. No significant

differences between treatments wore found. However, the nu-bcrs of bac-

teria and fungi found were slightly higher after twro irek in biuret

treated soils than those treated with amronium sulfate or urea.














G IERAL rU:" UJY


A. .Amonium sulfate, Urr.ite, and Borden's 38 were compared as

nitrogen fertilizers in greenhouse experiments wi-th the follo-iin

results:

1. Continued yields of oats and millet, hen grown for 249 days,

were approsi~atoly 13 to 20 per cent greater from soils fertilized with

annonium sulfate than froi similar soils fertilized vwith either Ur-'.ite

or Pordon's 38.

2. Ho great differences in total yields twre observed fror soils

fertilized with the uroa.formaldehyde co-pounds.

3. Fifty per cent more nitrogen was taken up by plants fro-. aro-

nium sulfate treated soils than from Uranite or 'orden's 38 treated soils.

4. Analyses of the soils for total nitrogen at the tornination of

the e:p
was not recovered in the plant material and soils.

B. 1'hen comparisons wore made of yields and nitrogen uptake by

millet from soils fertilized with urea, Uramite, and Borden's 38, the

following rrer observed:

1. Total yields and nitrogen uptake were approximately the same

for all nitroron sources used in this experiment.

2. Froin 3 to 55 per cent of the ndded nitrogen was unaccounted for

in the plants and in the soil after the final harvest of nillet.











C. Additions of biuret, urea, and amr onium sulfate to a previously

lined nincral soil, an unlimed mineral soil, and an acid peat revealed

the following:

1. The nitrification rate of biuret was approxinatcly 50 per cent

lower than that from urea or awroniuir sulfate during the first two weeks

of incubation.

2, After tio weeks, the rate of nitrate production from biurot,

urea, and na.:oni xulfatc was apprcximatcly the same.

3. Inhen additional line and urea were applied to previously lined

mineral soil, the piH value exceeded the limiting reaction for nitrifi-

cation and no nitrates were produced.

4. Nitrate production from applications of anmonium sulfate to an

unlimi d acid peat was low(. hicn the peat was limed, the production of

nitrates was increased.

D. No significant differences in numbers of organisms were found

in a mineral soil after one and two r;cks of incubation with biuret,

urea, and anicniu:m sulfate.































APPED I X









APPENDIX TABLE 1


Yields of Oats and 1illet Fron Applications of
Arconiumr Sulfate and Two Urea-Fornalddehde
Compounds to Kanapaha Fine Sand


Source


r se I
Gns/P


Uramite
Torden's 38
(H14)2so04
Check

Uramite
Bordcnl' 38
(rm4)2c04

Check


8.55
9.96
8.60

1.72

9.76
13.13
0.00

2.89


Yield of Oats at

At Gmis/Pot


8.06
8.15
5.75
2.12

11.16
13.15
7.24

2.15


60 Davs
Rep III
G-.7Pot

6.83
7.49
8.75


2.11


11.44
11.14
3.48

1.95


Uratitc
Eordon's 38
(1114)2SO4
Check

Uramite
Borden's 38
(11145)2204


Check


Uranito
Dordcn's 38
(11; 14)25 04
Check

Urar-ito
Borden's 38
(;Iia[,)25sQI


6.34
5,20
10,38

1.66

9.74
8.76
0.00

1.26


Yield of ballet
Between 100 & 161 Days


18.40
22,20
28.30

6.20

26.40
28.20
48.20

6.50


3.30 6.20


Rate
-.(1) .I .
Gms/Pot


1.35


2.70


1.35


2.70


4.70
5.18
9.60

1.48

9.50
8.66
5.18


5.24
11.60

1.98

9.38
9.72
7.06
1.62


1.35


2.70


16.20
16.40
30.80

6.20

20.40
20.80
34.20


14.60
13.40
26.40

4.30

26.50
23.20
34.60


N


Yield of Oats Between 60 & 100 Days


Chech









APPENDIX TABLE 1 (Continued)


,ou rco


Urtn.ito
Borden's 38
(Ii4)2so04
Check

Ura.itc
Dordcnt' 33
(li14)2r04


Gas/Pot

5.42
5.62
2.97

2.18

10.15
11.25
12.87


Check


Yield of Millet
T3oeteen 161 & 209 Dr
Rco II
Gns/Pot

6.40
4.67
2.38


2.22

11,52
0.22
11.62

2.27


Yield of Tillot
Pctucen 209 Z- 24? Dys_


Urar-rit
Lordcn*' 38
(V 1 2')04-
Check

Uranito
Iordcn's 38
(mN4)2soq-


Check


5.96
6.75
4.41


12.96
6.64
16.96

3.34


(1) 1.35 grans nitrogen per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.


Rate
t-U 1 I'


1.35


2.70


Pr. III
G:-,n/P1ot
6.11
5.05
2.30


11.62
11.31
11.42

11. 2


1.35


2.70


6.58
7.91
9,94
3.12

2.11
10.52
17.37


3.35


6.80
5.31
5.12
3.11

9.43
8.34
14.62

3.51









APPENDIX TABLS 2


Ilitrogcn Uptakel by Oats
of Anr-oniur: fiulfate
Co pounds to


and Millet Fron Applications
and Tro Uroa-ForInaldoyde
Kanap aha Fine Sand


:itrofen
RPc I
CG:./Pot


Uptake by 0ats

Gis/Pot


at 60 Do~::
GRC III
G-.c)Pot


Uranito
Borden's 38


Chock

Ur&mite
Borden's 38
(114)2so4

Check


0.2736
0.2809
0.3767

0.0432

0.3816
0.5331
0.0000

0.0520


;:itrocon Uptnkc by Oats
_ct _cen 60 c 100 Dars _


Urarite
Borden's 38
(mN4)2204
Check

Ura;itc
Pordcn's 38
(1Il4)2SQO


Checlk


0.1033
0.0754
0.3716

0.0229

0.2036
0.1805
0.0000

0.0266


Iitrogon UptLak by Millet
Bntucen 100 & 161 Dp:rs_


Uramite
Borden's 38


Check

Urarito
Dorden's 33
(IITn)2.)04


0.1343
0.1487
0.2575

0.0496

0.20861
0.2566
1.2436

0.0422


0.0305 0.0251


Rate
S(Pot)
Gr1-/Pot


Source


1,35


2.70


0.2181
0.2657
0.2473

0.0411

0.4352
0.5142
0.3367

0.0510


0.2070
0.2569
0.4174

0O0390

0.4027
0.4489
0.1709

0.0359


1.35


2.70


0.0625
0.0927
0.4013

0.0180

0.2014
0.1663
0.1772

0.0263


0.0713
0.0322
0.3550

0.0223

0.1576
0.1933
0.3270

0.0186


1.35


2.70


0o,1166
0.1246
0.2618

0.0579

0.1571
0.1560
0,7592


0.0949
0.0978
0,.2244

0.0515

0.2889
0.2030
0.9792


*


I


Check









APPENDIX TABLE 2 (Continued)


Source


Uranite
Borden's 38
(NH4)2 0,
Check

Uramite
Borden's 38
( II4)2504


Gas/po

0.045

0.033

0.02C


0.1025
0.1046
0.2175

0.0200


Check


:litroccn Uptake by
Between 161 & 209
L Re II
7k Gas/Pot

55 0.0474
'2 0.0406
36 0.0452

>1 0.0209


0.0841
0.0715
0.2626

0.0207


Millet

Rep III
Gns/Pot

0.0519
0.0505
0.0301

0.0172


0.0999
0,0860
0.2798

0.0153


N!itrof;en Uptake by iillet
Between 209 t: 249 D~ys


Urarit
Borden*s 38
(I:4)2S504
Check

Urai-ite
Borden's 38
(H14)2S024
Check


0.0548
0.0601
0.03,33

0.0273

0.0985
o.0664
0.2324

0.0297


(1) 1.35 Graz nitrocgn per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.


Rate

Gmrs /ot


1.35


2.70


1.35


2.70


0.0737
0.0625
0.0586

0.0243

0.0331
0.0842
0.1685

0.0318


0.0585
0.0312
0.*0483

,o0264

0.0764
0.0701
0.1418

0.0263


I











APPENDIX TABLE 3

Soil Reaction of Kanapaha Fine Sand 249 Days After
Applications of Arionium Sulfate and
Two Urea-Formaldehyde Compounds

Rate _._____ .._. ..... __H ._.
S1(1) source Re Rep II Rep III

1.35 Uranite 5.20 5.68 5.18
Borderin 38 5.11 5.84 5.53
(Nr)2So4 4.79 4.69 4.69
Check 5.32' 5,76 5.18
2.70 Ura -it 5.81 5.12 5.48
Borden's 38 5.39 5.19 5.29
(:1)204s 4.49 4.51 4.65
Check 5.18 5.10 5.6?

(1) 1,35 Graxn nitrogen per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.











APPENDIX TABIE 4

Total Grams of I;itrogcn EcmaininC in Kanapaha Fine Sand
249 Days After Applications of Arm=oniur Sulfate
and Two Urea-Formaldehyde Compounds

Rate Nitrooen
( l() Source Rep II RepIII
Gms/Pot Gms/Pot GmsfPot Gms/Pot
1.35 Uramite 6,1213 7.1664 6,7185
Porden's 38 6,5693 7.0171 6.1213
(l ig)2s4 6.5899 6.6999 6.6897
Checc: 6.5692 6.1213 6.5692

2,70 Urwn'itc 7.3157 7.6143 7.3157
Sorden's 38 7.1664 7.9129 6.7185
(iiI)2SO04 6.7185 6.7185 6.5692
Chock 7.1664 5#9720 6.1213

(1) 1.35 gra-is nitrogen per pot equals 100 pounds per acre.









APPE-DIX TABLE 5


Yiclds of ~!illt From Applications of Urea
and Two Urca-ormaldc.ciyde Coripound
to Kanapaha Fine Sand


Source


Yield
Roep I
Gmc3/Pot

27.05
24.20
20.46

17.71


Uramito
Bordcn's 38
Urea

>heck

Urar.itc
Dor cn's 38
Urra.

Chock

Uramite
I'ordcn's 38
Urea

Check


26.51
19.49
26.80

18.36

18.95
22.49
26.53

12.21


at 57 Dayzs
t.co IT


15.61
20,39
,18.28

18.50


19.45
19.71
22.96

19.56

17.43
22.20
30.61


Yield Between
57 & 103 Da>ys ..


Ura~-tc
Dorldn's 38
Urea

Chock

Urav-'itc
Pordckn's 38
Urea

Check

Uramite
Borden's 38
Urea


1.84
2,62
1.26

2.36

2.39
1.82
2.95

0.62

5.81
5.05
1.02


Chock 1.01


2.02
2.34
1.87

1.11

5.06
2.44
2.62

0.92

6.48
3.54
2.28

0.84


G:.-16ot
0.1663


0*3326


0,4989


0.1663


0.3326


0.4 J:..








APPENDIX TABLE 5 (Continued)

Yield Betwmon
Rate 103 & 143 D ys
__ Source ep I 1Re II
G-..-/Pot -Gms/Pot GTmsPot

0.1663 Uramite 2.64 3.81
Lorcdn's 38 2.63 3.97
Urea 4.19 3.13
Check 3.51 2.71

0.3326 Ur3r.itc 1.95 2.01
Borden's 38 5.43 6.!0
Urc. 4.31 7.05

Checi 0.C? 1.02

0.4989 Urdaite 2.56 2.28
Borden's 38 3.36 5.86
Urea 1.87 2.83
Cc 1.41 0.71

(1) 0.1663 gra~s nitroz,:: per pot equals 75 pounds per acrc.









APPENDIX TABLE 6


Nitrogen Uptake by Millet From Applications of
Urea and Tmo U'rc.-PormraldohyJde Compounds
to r.f-~na Fine Sand


Pourcec


Uraritc
Bordon's 38
Urea

Check

Uramite
Borden's 38
Urca


CI!E:Cl:


Uranite
ForSzn's 38
Urea

Chcct!


Nitrogen Uptake
n otwcen 57 & M103 DUys


Ura:itc
ordcrn' s 33
.Tro.

Check

Uranite
Eor3cen's 38
Urea

Check

Urr.-itc
Dordon's 38
Urea


Chock 0.0068


Rate
N(11)
Ons/Pot

0.1663


Untake atj


0.3326


0.4989


::;n I
Gms/Pot

0.1731
0.1597
0.2128

0.1399

0.2863
0.2105
0.3245

0.1524

0.2653
0.3372
0.4245


0.1563


}icn IT







0.2315
0.1951
0.2411
O0 21OU1

0.1623

0.2674
0.3197
0.2 .7

0.1842


0.1663


0.3326


0.4989


0.0147
0.0218
0.0105

0.0177

0.0246
0.0197
0.0236

0.0058

0.0424
0.0470
0.0125


0.0188
0.0203
0.0178

0.0142

0.0410
0.02.4!:
0.0228

0.0082

0.0544
0.0301
0.0255

0.0073








APPENDIX TAELE 6 (Continued)

Nitrogen Uptake
Rate Pntron 103 & 143 Days
_i(I) Source J L. Jcr IX
ns/Pot sot t Gts/Pot
0.1663 UraLito 0.0211 0.0232
Borden's 38 0.0231 0.0268
Urea 0.0356 0.0225
Check 0,0026 0.0225

0,3326 Urarite 0.0203 0.0205
2orcdcn's 38 0.0440 0.0510
Urea 0,0332 0.0585
Checc 0.0061 0.0095

0.4989 Urarite 0,0225 0.0212
Borden's 38 0.0349 0.0563
Urea 0.0178 0.0212
C L': 0.0109 0.0053

(1) 0.1663 graIs nitrogen per pot equals 75 pounds per acre.











APPENDIX TABLE 7


Soil Reaction of Kanapaha
After Application of
Urea-Formaldehyde


Source

Uramitp
Borden's 38
Urne


Check


Uramite
Borden's 38
Urea

Check

Uramite
Borden's 38
Urea

Check


Fine Sand 143 Days
Urea and Two
Compounds


Rep I Rep II


6.50
6.61


6.51

7.02
6.61
7.21

5.81

7.05
6.01
6.23

6.59


6.21
6.90
7.08

6.75

7.29
6.57
6.98

6.05

7.65
7.19
6,42

6.59


(1) 0.1663 grans nitrogen per pot equals 75 pounds per acre.


Rate

Gms/Pot

0.1663


0.3326


0.4989












APPENDIX TABLE 8


Total Grams of IIitrogen Remaining in Kanapaha Fine
Sand 143 Days After Applications of Urea and
Two Urea-Formaldehyde Compounds


Source


Uramite
Borden's 38
Urea

Check

Urarite
Fordcn's 38
Urea


Check


Uramite
Borden's 38
Urea

Check


.Nitrogen


Rep II
Gm13/Pot

2.5872
2.4900
2.3520

2.3200

2.4990
2.5872
2.5872

2.3520

2.3226
2.4412
2.4882

1.9698


(1) 0.1663 Cra-:s nitrogen per pot equals 75 pounds per acre.


Rate
N(01)
Gms/Pot

0.1663


0.3326


Rep I
Gms/Pot

2.3520
2.5758
2.4696

2.4990

2.2638
2.5872
1.9110

2.4990

2,4990
2.4402
2.4990

2.5872


0.4989








APPENDIX TABLE 9

Nitrate Nitrogen Produced Fron Applications of
Biuret, Urea, and Armonium Sulfate
to Arredondo Fine Sand

Nitrate Nitrogen
Rate Rate .5 Ds 10 Pays
CaC03 Source Rep I Rep II Rep III Rep I Rep II Rep III
tonsa ppm ppm ppm ppm p pp pp ppm
0 150 Biuret 7.20 7.20 12.00 12.89 15.24 16.41
Urea 15.60 15.00 16.80 35.75 35.75 35.75
(1:114)2S04 21.00 17.40 21.00 45.71 41.02 46.83
Check 5.40 6.00 5.40 5.86 5.86 5.86
2 150 Biuret 7.80 5.40 7.80 16.41 15.24 14.65
Urea 17.40 18.00 16.80 35.16 38.09 35.16
(NHH)2S04 24.60 22.80 24.00 38.09 38.09 41.02
Check 5.40 3.00 5.40 5.27 5.27 5.27
0 300 Biuret 7.80 7.80 7*80 16.99 16.41 16.41
Urea 3.00 6.00 5.40 5.86 7.62 5.86
(NMH)2S04 7.80 10.20 12.00 39.85 48.64 45.71
Check 3.00 5.40 3.00 9.96 5*86 5.86
2 300 Biuret 7.80 7.20 6.00 15.24 14.65 11*72
Urea 5.40 5.40 4.80 5.27 7*62 5.86
(N41)2so4 15.00 13,20 7.80 46.88 50.98 38.09
Check 4.80 5.40 4.80 5.27 5.86 7.03

15 Days 20 Days
0 150 Biuret 24.83 24.83 28.38 68.84 61,26 75.84
Urea 29.56 24.83 28,38 52.51 43.76 50.76
(N14)2So4 41.38 32.52 35.47 110.85 87.51 81.68
Check 7.69 7.09 7.69 5.83 5.83 5.83
2 150 Biuret 28.38 26.60 28.38 72.93 65.34 72.93
Urea 28.97 29.56 28.38 84.59 87.51 78.76
(NTO )2so4 47.30 47.30 49*07 122.51 119.60 114.35


5.91 5.32 5.32 5.83 5.83 5.25


Check








APPENDIX TABLE 9 (Continued)

Nitrate Nitrogen
Rate Rate 15 Days N r20 Dvays
CC N Source Rep I Rep II Re~ I Rep1 Rep II Rep III
tons/a ppm ppn ppm ppr ppm ppm ppm
0 300 Biuret 17.15 17.15 17.15 28.00 23.92 23.34
Urea 5,32 5.32 5.32 5.25 5*25 5.83
(NH14) 2S04 28.97 23.65 39.67 39.67 35.59 45.51
Check 5.91 5.32 7.58 7.58 5.83 5.25
2 300 Biuret 16.55 17.15 17.15 28.00 24.50 28.00
Urea 4.73 4.73 4.73 2.92 5.25 4.67
(NH4)2S04 24.83 24.83 20.69 46.67 37.92 43.76
'Check 5, 32 5.91 5.91 5.25 5.25 5.83

30 Days 40 Dys
0 150 Biuret 115.27 115.27 120.56 121.70 121.70 121.70
Urea 111.74 120.56 123.50 121.70 106.05 106.05
(NIm)2s04 107,62 107.62 100.57 121,70 118.80 118.80
Check 7.65 7.65 7,65 11.59 7.53 9.85
2 150 Biuret 123.50 123.50 123.50 113.58 121,70 113.58
Urea 111.74 107.62 104.68 118.80 110.11 113.58
(0l4)2o04 120.56 120.56 115.27 118.80 118.80 113.58
Check 5.88 7.65 11.59 11.59 11.59 11.59
0 300 Biuret 38.23 38.23 35.29 75.34 56.79 50.42
Urea 5.29 5.68 5.29 6.95 6.95 5.80
(II:.)2so04 51.16 45.87 47.05 84.03 52.16 60.85
Check 12.94 5.88 5.88 11.59 9.85 7.53
2 300 Biuret 38.23 38.23 39.99 55.05 52.16 60.85
Urea 5.29 2.94 4.70 5.22 5.22 5.22
(N1h)z2S04 51.16 51.16 45.87 72.44 63.75 60.85


5.88 5.88 7.06 7.53 9.85 11.59


~__II_ _ __P__ _~ C__ _I_ __


Check











APPE:IDIX TABLE 10

Reaction of Arredondo Fine Sand After
40 Days' Incubation With Biuret,
Urea, and Amzronitu Sulfate
Tatc Rate pl
CalOl3 N Hurce Rep I !Zep II ROD III
tons/a ppm
0 150 Biuret 7.1 7.4 7,5
Urea 7.3 7.4 7.2
(Nmh)2s04 7.2 7.3 7*2
Check 7.4 7.6 7.5
2 150 Piurct 7.4 7.6 7.5
Urea 7.5 7.4 7.2
(N4)2soE4 7.2 7.3 7.4
Check 747 7,6 7.7

0 300 Diuret 7.5 7.6 7.6
Urea 8.1 8*0 8.1
(:4)o 6.9 6,9 7.0
Check 7.5 7.6 7.6

2 300 Biuret 7.7 7.5 7.5
Urea 8.2 8.0 8.1
(m14)24 7.2 7.2 7,0


Check 7.6


__ II I ~~ __I~__~_ _ L ___ ~11_~1_~~~___ _~_11_4 __~_/__


7.7








APPENDIX TAEiLI 11

Nitrate Nitrogen Fro: Applications of Biuret,
Urca, and Ammonium Sulfate to Peat
SHitrate NitroEen ....._
Rate Rate 1 Week 2 Weeks
CaCQO 11 Source Re I Rep II Ro III E I. ROp II Rep III
tons/a ppm ppm ppa ppn ppm ppm ppm
0 300 Biuret 55.50 58,42 61.34 100,70 100.70 100.70
Urea 65,72 65.72 65.72 140.97 119.40 115.08
(In4)2so4 43.82 43.82 42.35 60.42 .57.54 60.42
Check 40.89 37.97 40.89 57.54 57.54 69.05
4 300 Biurot 58.42 58.42 61.34 100.70 100.70 112.20
Urea 61.34 61.34 51.12 114.08 151.04 151,04
(N1?,0)2SO4 71.56 61.34 58.42 125.15 115.08 119.40
Chock 40.89 43.82 40.89 57.54 58.98 58.98

3 Weeks 4 Ieeks
0 300 Biuret 139.39 128.01 128.01 156.80 147.00 154.00
Urea 159.30 172.10 172.10 182,00 165.20 142.80
(NI34)2s04 85.34 71.12 78.23 70.00 70.00 72.80
Check 78.23 86.76 85.34 82.60 85,40 98.00

4 300 Biuret 199.12 167.83 184.90 210.00 182.00 194.60
Urea 227.57 234.68 213.35 231.00 273.00 273.00
(11H1)2504 213.35 206.23 199.12 240.80 231.00 210,00
Check 78.23 71.12 71.12 93.00 95.20 100.80

6 weeks
0 300 Biuret 211.50 187.71 194.32
Urca 218.11 -- -
( I14) 20 83.28 66.10 112.36
Chock 104.43 112.35 117.65
4 300 Biuret 277.60 237.94 257.77
Urea 337.08 310.65 -
(m171)2so4 297.43 284.21 284.21


120.29 107.07 112.36


1_~11 II _ ___ ____ I~~__~I_~ _____~_I I_


Check








AP?E;DIX TALE 12

Arinonia iitrogn FroM- Applications of Biuret,
Urea, and A.mnoniu Sulfate to Peat
__' A-nonia nitrogen
Rate Rate 12 oegks
C 3 JN Source iL R III SiE In III
tonGa ppn ppa ppm ppm ppm ppl Pp7

0 300 Biurot 146 219 182 144 179 144
Urea 219 291 182 .287 .251 215
(NH4)2S04 255 219 437 251 323 359
Check 109 73 73 72 72 72
4 300 riuret 182 109 182 144 108 144
Urea 146 255 182 215 179 215
(HI4)2SO4 219 255 182 215 251 215
Check 73 109 73 72 72 72

.3 eek 4 WeeJks
0 300 Biuret 142 178 142 175 140 175
Urea 284 284 284 315 315 350
( 1I1)2304 391 462 355 454 454 350
Chock 107 71 71 105 70 105
4 300 Biuret 107 107 107 140 140 105
Urea 284 l14 249 280 140 245
(1T114)2''0o 213 213 249 315 210 245
ChcC!: 107 71 71 105 70 105

6 Weeks
0 300 Biurot 20 162 162
Urea 292 --
(;.)20 4C7 487 390
Cc!ck 130 130 130
4 300 Biuret 162 162 162
Urea 195 162
(NH1)2?04 162 195 227


97 130 97


_ __ I__


Chchl:




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs