2019 SWCS International Annual Conference July 28-31, 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1. Balancing of soil nutrients
to aid soil fertility programs, and
improves soil resilience to extreme weather conditions
Zouheir Massri, Ph.D
Soil Physics & Fertility Research Manager.
AgroLiquid, Michigan
Jerry Wilhm, Ph.D
Senior Research Manager
AgroLiquid, Michigan
74th
SOIL
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY

2. Soil fertility shows considerable variability in Ag. and research fields:
Variabilities are high when droughts are more severe, rainfall events
intensity, and varies with:
1. Soil type, soil texture, and soil structure.
2. Physical and chemical measurements (pH, organic matter, N, P, K, CEC, and etc.).

3. Gilford sandy loam
Dominant Soil Order: Mollisols
Percent Mollisols: 90%
Dominant Soil
Suborder:
Aquolls
Percent Aquolls 90%
Farmland Class: Prime farmland if drained
Parkhill loam
Dominant Soil Order: Inceptisols
Percent Inceptisols: 95%
Dominant Soil Suborder: Aquepts
Percent Aquepts 95%
Farmland Class: Prime farmland if drained
Capac loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes
Dominant Soil Order: Alfisols
Percent Alfisols: 90%
Dominant Soil Suborder: Aqualfs
Percent Aqualfs 90%
Farmland Class: Prime farmland if drained
Boyer complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Dominant Soil Order: Alfisols
Percent Alfisols: 100%
Dominant Soil Suborder: Udalfs
Percent Udalfs 100%
Farmland Class:
Farmland of local
importance
Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Dominant Soil Order: Alfisols
Percent Alfisols: 90%
Dominant Soil Suborder: Udalfs
Percent Udalfs 90%
Farmland Class:
All areas are prime
farmland
Corunna sandy loam
Dominant Soil Order: Mollisols
Percent Mollisols: 90%
Dominant Soil Suborder: Aquolls
Percent Aquolls 90%
Farmland Class: Prime farmland if drained
Adrian muck
Dominant Soil
Order:
Histosols
Percent Histosols: 100%
Dominant Soil
Suborder:
Saprists
Percent Saprists 100%
Farmland Class: Farmland of local importance
Boyer complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Dominant Soil Order: Alfisols
Percent Alfisols: 100%
Dominant Soil Suborder: Udalfs
Percent Udalfs 100%
Farmland Class: Farmland of local importance

4. Corn yield- 2018, NCRS farm7, AgroLiquid, Michigan

5. Soil fertility shows considerable variability in Ag. and research fields:
Variabilities are high when droughts are more severe, rainfall events
intensity, and varies with:
1. Soil type, soil texture, and soil structure.
2. Physical and chemical measurements (pH, organic matter, N, P, K, CEC, and etc.).
3. Soil available nutrients can vary widely as we move across Ag. field vs.
3.1. Variable application rates.
3.1. Variable application mix.
3.2. Variability of treatments spatial design.
D
D
D
D D
D

6. Liebig's Law of the Minimum
Nutrients Balance and Soil Resilience:
 Liebig's Law of the Minimum
- any deficiency of one plant nutrient will severely limit the
efficiency of other nutrients.
 In view of the widespread occurrence of nutrients
deficiencies, the scope and content of balanced fertilization
itself has changed.
 Likely, to includes now the deliberate application of all
nutrients that the soil cannot supply in adequate amounts for
optimal crop yield.

7. Soil Resilience vs. the 4- R principle
1. Right source
2. Right rate
3. Right time
4. Right place, and
5. and the Right ratio or (Variable Rate Technology- VRT, or the 5th –R)
The right ratio:
 The N/K ratio during plant vegetative growth.
 P/micro-elements (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu), negative interaction.
 Ca/Mg ratio and potential adhesion of soil particles (Mg). This is a site specific.
 K/ Mg ratio (0.25- 0.35), Soil Health index by A&L Lab.
 NH4
+/ Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+
 % of Ca (65-72), Soil Health index by A&L Lab.

8. VRT, a practice was thought to enable growers to overcome challenges and to
adjust soil nutrients inputs based upon the soil properties and variabilities,
increase their yield, and to benefit the environment.
Therefore the main focus is:
1. To evaluate the long-term spatial and temporal nutrients variability associated
with fertilization programs.
2. Equalize soil nutrient dynamics using soil test information conducted to
determine affordable fertilizer application rates.
3. improve crops economic revenue, and improves soil conditions resilience.
4. Establishing soil fertility programs to improve soil resilience to extreme
weather conditions.

9. Soil Health indicators/ resilience:
1. Soil organic carbon.
2. Sort term carbon mineralization
3. Total N
4. Nitrogen mineralization rate.
5. Bulk density
6. Texture
7. Aggregate stability
8. Water infiltration rate
9. Water holding capacity
10. pH
11. EC
11. Erosion rating
12. Soil penetration resistance
13. Crop yield
14. CEC
15. Base saturation
16. Extractable K, P, Ca, Mg, Na
18. Extractable micronutrients: Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn

11. K+ (ppm)
3D of soil spatial distribution of potassium soil content (ppm)
sampled at 0-6” on April 12, 2018
Average 147.3 ppm
STDEV 34.61

12. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ExchangeablePotassium(ppm)
Soil Cation-Exchange Capacity, CEC (meq/ 100g soil)
Changes of Available Potassium as related to Soil CEC
(Data of Midwest labs.)
Very low
Very high

13. Applied K (ppm) = ((
𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑲 𝒑𝒑𝒎 𝑿 𝟒% 𝑲 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
%𝑲 𝒔𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏
)- (𝑺𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑲 𝒑𝒑𝒎)
 An equalization of potassium was decided to apply to apply muriate of potash (0-0-62) as source of
potassium at rates to achieve 4% base saturation, as accepted level of potassium sufficiency.
 % K in the soil test base saturation) of soil testing was used for this in order to compensate for
variations in soil CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity) which influences sufficiency interpretation levels for
cations (positive charged soil nutrients).
What we did:
 The phosphorus was applied to the maintenance level based upon the amount of P2O5 phosphate needed
for a corn yield goal of 170 bu./ acre according to the Tri-State Fertilizer Guide (Vitosh et al., 1995).
Neal Kinsey et al., 1993

14. Pre-planting soil testing data of soil CEC (meq/100g soil), available potassium and phosphorus (ppm),
and amounts of applied K and P (ppm) following Tri-State Fertility Guide for Corn, and corn yield
(Bu/acre) of 18-701.
Reps Treatments CEC Pre-Planting soil
testing (ppm)
Soil content after
application
Applied K and P
(pound acre-1) in form
of
Corn yield
meq/100g K P1 Bray
K
(ppm)*
P
(ppm) Potash
(0-0—62)
DAP
(18-46-0)
Bu/ acre
Rep-1
Plot-1
(control) 10.1 126 10 126 10 0.0 0.0 148.9
Plot-2 9.7 139 11 150 29.1 43.6 180.0 153.4
Plot-3 9.7 123 10 149 29.2 101.0 191.0 164.4
Plot-4 10.9 124 13 171 28.9 182.1 158.0 167.5
Plot-5 11.0 125 13 172 28.9 183.5 158.0 157.8
Plot-6 11.2 147 19 173 28.3 100.4 93.0 157.8
Plot-7 11.9 153 22 185 28.1 125.6 61.0 165.3
Plot-8 13.4 186 19 207 28.3 80.0 93.0 174.7
Plot-9 13.2 210 24 210 27.9 0.0 39.0 172.0
Plot-10 13.0 181 22 201 28.1 77.8 61.0 184.1
Average
11.8
147.3 13.2 182.1 28.9 142.8 156.0 170*
STDEV**
1.5
34.6 6.4 28.0 0.5 65.7 102.2 11.7
Correlation of CEC vs K (ppm) of soil testing, R= 0.6
Correlation of CEC vs K (ppm) of soil testing + applied K (ppm), R= 0.9

15. What we did:
 Dry fertilizers were broadcast-applied over the corresponding
plots using a calibrated Gandy spreader supplemented with a
customized PTO-driven turbine to evenly blow the granules over
the 15-foot wide plots.
 The Potash was applied on May 9 and the DAP on May 10.
Fertilizers were incorporated into the ground with tillage following
application Gandy spreader:
Dry fertilizer applicator.
 Corn planted May 10, 2018
 A planter fertilizer application of 3 gal of Pro-Germinator® (9-24-3 + 0.1 Fe) + 3 gal of Kalibrate® (2-0-
10 +6S) + 1 quart of Micro 500® (micronutrients) per acre was applied in the seed furrow at planting
to promote uniformity for early growth.
 45 gal/ acre of High NRG-N® (27- 0-0- +7S) side-dressed by 360 Y-DROP® on June 15, 2018.

16. y = 124.13e0.0017x
R= 0.71
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
CornyieldBushel/Acre
Bushel/Acre
Values of K+ (ppm) of soil testing and preplanting applied K+
Correlation of corn yield vs recommended application rates
of (K + soil testing of K)
Average yield of applied K (B./acre) = 170
Average yield of control (B./acre) = 154

17. 75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
2018 K
2019 K
Soil testing-2019
STDEV = 23
Soil testing-2018
STDEV = 35
Sampled plots
K+(ppm)
Values of soil testing of potassium in 2018 and 2019

18. 200
150
100
3D spatial distribution
Values of soil testing K (ppm)
19- 701
3D of soil spatial distribution of potassium soil content (ppm)
sampled at 0-6” on April 24, 2019
Average 138.4 ppm
STDEV 23.20

19. Conclusion for K:
2018 (corn) 2019 (Soybeans)
STDEV: 34.61 23.20
Lower value (of K soil testing, ppm) 104 105
Higher value (of K soil testing, ppm) 243 194
Average values (of K soil testing, ppm) 147.3 138.4
Applied Potash (Lb./acre) 5140 6710
Average of carry over (ppm): Control = 14
Treated = 45.3

20. Conclusion:
 Soil nutrients are dynamic in ag. fields conditions and in research plots.
 Soil nutrients variability and availability, likely occur, due to non-continuity of nutrient
levels of application and can vary widely as we move across agriculture growers’ field
and research plots.
 VRT, a practice, likely, will enable growers to overcome challenges and to adjust soil nutrients
inputs based upon the soil properties and variabilities, increase their yield, and to benefit the
environment.
 Hence, VRT a manageable tool of soil fertility for Soil Resilience and to benefit the
environment.
 Rationale management of soil fertility programs improves soil resilience to extreme
weather conditions, by providing healthy chemo-biophysical environment for plants.

21. Thank you
Questions
74th
SOIL
AND WATER
CONSERVATION
SOCIETY
Zouheir Massri, Ph.D
Soil Physics & Fertility Research Manager.
AgroLiquid, Michigan
Zouheir.Massri@agroliquid.com

22. Selecting Indicators for Soil Health/ Soil Resilience:
1. Ease of sampling.
2. Ease of measurement.
3. Accuracy.
4. Reliability.
5. Sensitive to management.
6. Cost sensitive to management, and Interpretability.