Use of FGD Gypsum Soil
Amendments for Improved Forage
and Corn Production
Warren A. Dick, Liming Chen and David Kost
The Ohio State University
[email protected], 330-263-3877
http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/agriculturalfgdnetwork/
http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/soilbiolab/
Corn/Forages Production
and Gypsum
„
Sulfur Nutrition
„
Soil Chemical Properties
„
Soil Physical Properties
Corn Production
and Gypsum
Corn (Chemical Properties)
Corn Yield (Bu/acre)
120
100
Sodic Soil
106
80
60
66
40
20
0
Control
Gypsum
Treatments
(Fehrenbacher et al., Illinois Res., Spring, 3-4, 1972)
6
300
5
250
4
200
Uganda Soil
3
2
Tennessee Soil
100
Dashed Lines: Mn Concentrations
Solid Lines: Millet Yields
1
0
150
50
P
P + Gyp
0
Mn Tissue Concentrations (ppm)
Yield (g/pot)
Millet (Surface Acidity and Plant Nutrition)
Treatments
(McLean and Ssali, Soil Sci., 123:155-164, 1977)
Corn (Subsoil Acidity)
Grain Yield (Bu/acre)
120
115
116
110
105
100
95
98
90
85
Lime
Lime + Gypsum
Treatments
(Farina and Channon, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 52:175-180, 1988)
Corn (Surface and Subsurface Acidity)
60
Grain Yield (Bu/acre)
Amazon Basin, Brazil
50
52
No Lime
Lime
40
43
30
30
20
10
0
17
Control
Gypsum
Treatments
(Smyth and Cravo, Agron. J., 84:843-850, 1992)
Corn (Sulfur Nutrition)
Minnesota Soils
1985
1986
(Rehm, Commun. Soil Sci. Plan Anal., 24:285-294, 1993)
Corn (Subsoil Acidity)
Corn Grain Yield (Mg/ha)
12
Control
Gypsum
10
10.1
8
6
8.5
6.7
6.6
4
2
0
Experiment 1
(16 yrs prior)
Experiment 2
(15 yrs prior)
(Toma et al., Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 39:891-895. 1999)
Corn (Subsoil Acidity)
Corn Grain Yield (Bu/acre)
mean of 10 years
120
B
100
107
A
80
86
60
40
20
0
Lime
Lime + Gypsum
Treatment
(Farina et al., Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64:646–651 (2000)
Corn (Sulfur Nutrition)
Grain Yield (Mg/ha)
8
7
6
5
4
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sulfur (as gypsum) Additions (kg/ha)
(Khan et al., Commun. Soil Sci. Pl. Anal., 37: 41–51, 2006)
Average Corn Yield (Mg ha-1)
Corn (Sulfur Nutrition)
9.0
S
No S
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
Y=5.80+0.029x-0.00009x2 (R2=0.85)
2
2
Y=5.19+0.021x-0.00003x (R =0.96)
5.5
5.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
-1
N Rate (kg ha )
(Chen et al., Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., In Press, 2008)
Wheat (Sulfur Nutrition)
Wheat Yield (Mg/ha)
4.6
4.5
Hennessey Site (1998)
4.4
Grain yield
was
significantly
influenced
by applied
S as CaSO4
in six of 14
site-years
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
0
56
112
224
Gypsum (kg S/ha)
(Girma et al., J. Plant Nutr., 28:1541–1555 (2005)
Wheat (Plant Nutrition)
3500
Yield (lbs/acre)
3000
25 lbs P/acre
50 lbs P/acre
Haskell, OK
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
Banded
Broadcast
Gypsum Treatments
(Phillips et al., J. Plant Nutr., 23:251-261, 2000)
Forages Production
and Gypsum
Alfalfa (Sulfur Nutrition and Nematode Control)
Alfalfa Yield (tons/acre)
7.6
7.4
Alabama Field
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6.3
6.0
5.8
5.6
0
5
Gypsum Treatment (tons/acre)
(Mitchell and Ball, Alabama Agri. Exp. Station, Spring, 1972)
8
700
7
600
Yield (g/pot)
Tennessee Soil
6
500
5
400
4
Uganda Soil
300
3
200
2
1
0
Dashed Lines: Mn Concentrations
Solid Lines: Millet Yields
P
100
P + Gyp
0
Mn Tissue Concnetrations (ppm)
Alfalfa (Surface Acidity and Plant Nutrition)
(McLean and Ssali, Soil Science, 123:155-164, 1977)
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
7
Tops
Roots
Greenhouse Study
6
6.1
Yield (g/pot)
5.7
5
5.4
4
3.9
3
4.2
3.7
2
1
0
Control
Lime
Gypsum
Treatments
(Black and Cameron, New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 27:195-200, 1984)
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
Alfalfa Yield (tons/acre)
5.0
4.8
4.9
Appling Soil, Georgia
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.6
Lime
Gypsum + Lime
Treatment
(Bouton, Crop Science, 26:334-336, 1986)
Mean of Five Crops (tons/acre)
Forage Yield
Forages (Soil Chemical/Physical Properties)
18
16
Sodic Soil in India
14
12
14.5
15.5
12.6
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2.3
4.6
Gypsum Treatment (tons/acre)
(Kumar, Expl Agric., 24:97-103, 1988)
Dry Matter Yield (kg/ha)
Forages (Sulfur Nutrition)
Sulfur Applied (kg/ha/year)
(Mitchell and Blue, Agron. J., 81:53-57, 1989)
Corn Silage (Sulfur Nutrition)
Forage Yields (tons/acre)
4.8
4.73
4.7
4.67
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.39
4.3
4.2
0
21
42
Gypsum Treatment (lbs S/acre)
(Kless et al., Grass and Forage Science, 44:277-281, 1989)
Forages (Soil Physical Properties)
Corn Forage (tons/acre)
18
16
Sodic Soil in India
17.1
14
12
12.7
10
8
6
4
2
0
Control
Gypsum
Treatment
(Kumar, Expl Agric., 26:185-188, 1990)
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
Dry Matter Yield (kg/ha)
1200
1000
Sodic Soil in India
1020
800
600
400
626
419
200
0
Control
Gypsum
Gypsum plus
Drainage
Treatment
(Gupta and Arya, J. Arid Environ., 30:67-73 (1995)
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
Alfalfa Yields (kg/ha)
7
Ag Gypsum
6
5
5.8
4.9
FGD Gypsum
6.1
5.1
5.7
5.1
5.2
4
3
16
21
2.4
2
1
14
1.6
3.6
Rayne Soil, PA
0
Control
4.5
9.0
18
4.5
9.0
Soluble Al
content in
the 45-60
cm soil
layer was
decreased
43% by
treatment
regardless
of gypsum
source.
18
Treatments (Mg/ha)
Stout and Priddy, Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 27:2419-2432, 1996)
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
Alfalfa Yield (Mg/ha)
10
Control
Gypsum
9.1
8
6.8
6
5.3
4
3.9
2
0
Experiment 1
(16 yrs prior)
Experiment 2
(15 yrs prior)
Toma et al., Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 39:891-895, 1999)
Forages (Chemical and Physical Properties)
„
A study in Wisconsin using wallboard gypsum
(16 tons/acre) showed a positive trend for
increased yield of alfalfa at three of four locations
(Wolkowski, Commun Soil Sci. Plant Anal.,
31:187-199, 2000)
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
Achievements in management and utilization of
southern grasslands
CARL S. HOVELAND
J. Range Manage. 53:17-22 January 2000
Grasslands in the humid southern USA are utilized primarily for grazing on improved pastures,
most of which were developed since the 1930s and 1940s. Future areas of emphasis in
improvement of these grasslands may include: (a) greater use of grazing-tolerant grasses and
legumes; (b) stress-tolerant tall fescue with "friendly" non-toxic endophytes; (c) feed antidotes to
the toxins of endophyte-infected tall fescue; (d) use of herbicide-and pest-resistant biotechnology
genes in forage plants; (e) use of gypsum to alleviate subsoil acidity and improve rooting
depth of aluminum-sensitive forage cultivars; (f) greater use of computers in information
access and decision making by livestock producers; (g) greater use of forages for wildlife food;
(h) breeding of pasture plants with greater winter productivity; (i) development of a perennial
grass biomass energy industry for electrical generation and liquid fuel production.
Forages (Subsoil Acidity)
8.8
Production Phase
Yield (Mg/ha)
8.6
8.4
8.2
Yield attributed to calcium carbonate
equivalency due to impurity in the
gypsum
8.0
7.8
7.6
0
10
20
30
Gypsum (Mg/ha)
(Ritchey and Snuffer, Agron. J., 94:830–839 (2002)
Forages (Quality)
200
Daily Gain (g/day)
180
N (0)
N (138)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
S (0)
S (60)
Treatment
(Wang et al., Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystem, 62:195–202 (2002)
Forages (Sulfur Nutrition)
Alfalfa Yields (Mg/ha)
25
22
19
A
B
B
A
16
13
10
Control
V-FGD
P-FGD
Gypsum
Treatments
(Chen, Dick and Nelson, Jr., Agron. J., 97:265-271, 2005)
Forage Yield (Mg/ha)
Forages (Sulfur Nutrition)
3.7
3.6
Sodic Soil in
Coastal Canada
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
O
40
Gypsum Treatment (kg S/ha)
(Zheljazkov et al., J. Environ. Qual., 35:2410–2418 (2006)
Conclusions
„
„
„
„
„
The scientific literature contains numerous examples of
corn grain yield and forage yield benefits associated with
use of gypsum.
Benefits for corn and forages seem to be mostly associated
with increased sulfur nutrition and reduced subsoil acidity.
Treating sodic soils with gypsum increases productivity of
the soil for crop production.
Benefits of gypsum use may persist for several years after
application to soil.
Inappropriate use of high rates of gypsum can decrease
yield (due to nutrient imbalances).
Thank You