Nutruent Application Guildlines For Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops

Soil Test Rec:Layout 1 11/9/06 3:42 PM Page 55
A2809
Nutrient application guidelines

for field, vegetable, and fruit crops
in Wisconsin
Carrie A. M. Laboski
John B. Peters
Larry G. Bundy
1. Introduction 1 7. Phosphorus and potassium 41
Contents
2. Sampling soils for testing 2 Phosphorus and potassium
application rate guidelines 41
Goals of a soil sampling program 2
Additional considerations 44
Selecting a soil sampling strategy 2
Sample averaging 44
Procedures for taking soil samples 5
Phosphorus and the environment 45
3. Soil test procedures 8
8. Secondary and micronutrients 52
4. Soil and crop information 10 Secondary nutrients 52
Soil 10 Micronutrients 55
Crops 10
9. Nutrient credits 60
5. Soil pH and lime requirement 26 Manure 60
Lime requirement calculations 26 Municipal biosolids and other wastes 63
Plow depth adjustment 26 Legumes 64
Averaging the lime requirement 27
10. Starter fertilizers 66
Other factors affecting lime
recommendations 27 Corn 66
Lowering soil pH 27 Potato 67

Soybean and snap bean 67
6. Nitrogen 29
Accounting for nutrients in
Nitrogen application rate guidelines 29 starter fertilizers 67
Corn nitrogen rate guidelines 29
References 68
Nitrogen rate guidelines for
other crops 32
Using soil nitrate tests to adjust
nitrogen application rates 32
Managing nitrogen to avoid losses 38
Nitrogen management planning 40
F O R F I E L D , V E G E T A B L E , A N D F R U I T C R O P S I N W I S C O N S I N i
Preface
T
he Wisconsin soil testing program and
nutrient application guidelines were originally
developed in the early 1960s. The guidelines
have since been revised several times to reflect
research advances, additional correlation and cali-
bration data, and shifts in philosophical viewpoint.
The latest revision incorporates additional research
data, the maximum return to nitrogen (MRTN) phi-
losophy for corn nitrogen rate guidelines, preside-
dress nitrate test (PSNT) and preplant nitrate test
(PPNT) concepts. The Wisconsin routine farm soils
(RFS) computer program, which is used by
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and
Consumer Protection certified soil testing labora-
tories to generate a recommendation, has been
updated to reflect the changes in this document.
The guidelines in this publication have been incor-
porated into the nutrient management planning
software called SNAP-Plus
(http://www.snapplus.net/).
ii N U T R I E N T A P P L I C A T I O N G U I D E L I N E S
O
ver 200,000 soil samples are analyzed in
Wisconsin each year, and the results of these
tests guide Wisconsin farmers in the use of
lime and nutrient applications. The appropriate
use of lime, fertilizer, manure, and other nutrient
sources significantly increases Wisconsin farm
income. Just as importantly, following nutrient
Introduction — Chapter
The goals of Wisconsin’s soil testing program are
to: (1) provide an accurate index of the level of
available nutrients in the soil; (2) indicate the
degree of nutrient deficiency that may exist for the
various crops grown; (3) suggest how the defi-
ciency might be corrected; and (4) provide the
results in an understandable and meaningful way
1
application guidelines prevents over-application so that the farmer can make the appropriate
of nutrients. This, in turn, enhances profitability decision as to what nutrients to add.
and reduces the potential for environmental Nutrient Application Guidelines for Field, Vegetable,
degradation. and Fruit Crops in Wisconsin describes how to inter-
The importance of a good soil testing program is pret soil test results, provides nutrient application
well recognized by most farmers. Soil testing has guidelines, and outlines the assumptions underly-
some limitations, but it is still the best tool avail- ing the guidelines.
able for predicting lime and fertilizer needs. With
representative sampling, soil tests can accurately
predict lime, phosphorus, and potassium require-
ments. Soil tests can also serve as a guide for
nitrogen and some of the secondary nutrients and
micronutrients; however, these require special
testing and, in the case of nitrogen, special
sampling systems.
The underlying goal for Wisconsin’s recommenda-
tion program is to supply enough nutrients to the
crop for optimum growth throughout the season.
Because nutrient demands are not uniform
throughout the season, an adequate supply must
be available during the period of peak demand.
The Wisconsin program defines the “critical” level
as the cutoff between the “optimum” and “high”
soil test levels. If the nutrient supply drops below
the critical level, growers face economic losses
from reduced yields or poor crop quality. If the
supply exceeds the critical level, there is an
increased risk of mobile nutrients moving into the
ground water and surface water. In addition, there
is no profit in applying nutrients that will not be
used. The Wisconsin nutrient application guide-
lines help a grower to anticipate crop needs and
monitor nutrient availability.
F O R F I E L D , V E G E T A B L E , A N D F R U I T C R O P S I N W I S C O N S I N 1
2
Chapter — Sampling soils for testing
A
soil test is the only practical way of determin-
ing whether lime and fertilizer are needed for
a specific crop. However, if a soil sample does
not represent the general soil conditions of the
field, the recommendations based on this sample
may be misleading. An acre of soil to a 6-inch depth
weighs about 1,000 tons, yet less than 1 ounce of
Selecting a soil sampling strategy
Before selecting the sampling strategy, consider
analytical costs, time and equipment available,
field fertilization history, and the likelihood of
response to fertilization.
Sampling fields for a single whole

soil is used for each test in the laboratory. field (uniform) recommendation
Therefore, it is very important that the soil sample With conventional sampling, you will receive a
is representative of the entire field. Before collect- single set of nutrient and lime application guide-
ing the soil samples the overall approach of the lines that are based on sample averages. The
nutrient management program should be deter- sampling guidelines in Table 2.1 are based on
mined. This will affect the number of samples when the field was last tested (more or less than 4
needed and method by which samples will be years ago) and whether the fields were responsive
taken. Specifically, will nutrient and lime applica- or non-responsive the last time they were tested.
tions be made at a single uniform rate for the The responsive range is considered to be where
whole field being tested or will applications be either soil test phosphorus or potassium levels are
made at variable rates to field areas that have been in the high (H) category or lower. A non-responsive
identified as having different soil test levels? field is one where both soil test phosphorus and
potassium levels are in the very high (VH) or exces-
Goals of a soil sampling program sively high (EH) categories.
When sampling soils for testing and obtaining fer- Each sample should be made up of a minimum of
tilizer and lime recommendations, the most 10 cores, to assure accurate representation of the
common objectives are to: nutrient needs of the field. Research has shown
1. Obtain samples that accurately represent the that taking 10–20 cores provides a more represen-
field from which they were taken. tative sample of the area than when samples are
2. Estimate the amount of nutrients that should made up of fewer cores. Use a W-shaped sampling
be applied to provide the greatest economic pattern (as shown in Figure 2.1) over the whole
return to the grower. area that is represented by the sample when gath-
ering soil cores to make a composite sample. Be
3. Estimate the variation that exists within the
sure to thoroughly mix the cores before placing
field and how the nutrients are distributed spa-
approximately 2 cups in the sample bag.
tially.
For best results, submit multiple samples for all
4. Monitor the changes in nutrient status of the
fields. When at least three samples are provided,
field over time.
the Wisconsin nutrient application guidelines
program will remove samples that are significantly
higher than the field average and recalculate an
adjusted average for the field. This ensures that no
part of the field is under-fertilized. Where only one
or two samples are submitted for a field, no sample
can be discarded, whereas one sample can be dis-
carded if three or four samples are submitted, and
up to two samples may be discarded from fields
having five or more samples. It is not appropriate
to vary nutrient application rates across sampling
areas when using this soil sampling scheme.
2 N U T R I E N T A P P L I C A T I O N G U I D E L I N E S
CHAPTER
2
Sampling fields for site-specific careful evaluation of the economics of this inten-
Sampling soils for testing

management sive of a sampling system needs to be done before
Site-specific management requires a distinct proceeding.
picture of the magnitude and location of soil test When using a site-specific approach to soil
variability. Sampling soils for site-specific manage- sampling, sample handling and testing are similar
ment usually involves taking many more compos- to the traditional system, but recommendations
ite samples than sampling for a single recommen- may vary from one part of the field to another, and
dation. A global positioning system (GPS) is used these areas must be managed separately to realize
to record the geographical coordinates of each the potential advantages of intensive soil
sample. This information is used to generate an sampling.
application map by using various mathematical Several sampling strategies can be used to guide
techniques to interpolate the nutrient application variable-rate fertilizer and lime applications. Grid
rate between sampling points. Using variable rate sampling uses a systematic approach that divides
application technology, these fields can be the field into squares of approximately equal size
managed more intensively than the conventional (grid cells). The sampling technique used is known
approach of one fertilizer and lime rate per field. A as grid-point sampling. A grid-point sample
Figure 2.1. Recommended W-shaped sampling

pattern for a 15-acre field. Each sample should be
composed of at least 10 cores.
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Table 2.1. Recommended sample intensity for uniform fields.
Field size Suggested number

Field characteristics (acres) of samples a
Fields tested more than 4 years ago OR
fields testing in the responsive range All fields 1 sample/5 acres
Non-responsive fields tested
within past 4 years 5–10 2
11–25 3
26–40 4
41–60 5
61–80 6
81–100 7
a Collect a minimum of 10 cores per sample.
consists of at least 10 cores collected from a small Other considerations in selecting
area (10-foot radius) around a geo-referenced a sampling strategy
point. When using a grid sampling approach, The sampling strategy selected must also be
Wisconsin research recommends a sampling appropriate for the field size and topography.
strategy based on an unaligned systematic grid
Contour strips — On contour strip fields, sample
(Figure 2.2). Sampling points should be unaligned
each strip separately if it is approximately 5
because sampling in a uniform grid arrangement
acres or more in size, following the sampling
may lead to biased results if aligned with row
intensity guidelines provided in Table 2.1. Cores
patterns. Fields that have soil test phosphorus and
from two or three small strips that have identi-
potassium levels in the non-responsive categories
cal cropping and management histories may
should be grid-point sampled on a 300-foot grid.
be combined following these same recom-
This is equivalent to one soil sample for every 2 to
mended sampling intensity guidelines. Using a
2.5 acres. Where there is no information about the
grid point sampling approach on contour
phosphorus or potassium status of the field or
strips or small fields is not appropriate, regard-
where previous tests were in the responsive range,
less of grid cell size. This is because a grid tech-
a 200-ft grid size should be used. This is equivalent
nique may result in many soil samples being
to approximately one soil sample per acre. These
collected from one contour strip, but none in
small grid cell sizes are needed to be able to ade-
other strips; additionally grid point samples
quately characterize the variability in soil fertility
may be on the edge of the strips and not ade-
and are based on Wisconsin research. A larger grid
quately represent the strip.
cell size (such as 5 acres) may not adequately
describe the field variability and may limit the Five-acre grid point sampling — The 5-acre grid
potential economic benefits of site-specific man- point sampling system for whole field manage-
agement. ment recommendations has recently become
popular with soil samplers because it takes less
time to collect cores as compared to the tradi-
tional W pattern. Another advantage of this
approach is its ability to track changes in soil
test levels over time, because soil samples are
collected from the same geo-referenced (GPS)
Figure 2.2. An example of an unaligned grid pattern

for sampling site-specific fields.
2 4 2 5 3
CHAPTER
2
point each time the field is sampled. Five-acre

Procedures for taking soil samples
grid point sampling can likely be used in some
situations, but not in others. For example, in When to take soil samples
fields that were soil sampled within the past 4 Take soil samples at any convenient time. Studies
years and which were in the non-responsive examining the effect of sampling time on soil test
range, averaging the soil test results from 5- results suggest that test values for pH, phosphorus
acre grid point sampling is reasonable. This is (P), and potassium (K) are typically slightly higher
because there previously had not been a fertil- in early spring samples than in fall samples. To
izer recommendation on these fields and some receive your recommendations early enough to
variability at excessively high soil test levels enable you to apply the lime and fertilizer needed,
does not change the fact that no fertilizer was it may be best to sample in the fall. Another
recommended. For fields that were sampled benefit of fall testing is that fertilizer prices are
more than 4 years ago or where past soil test more likely to be discounted then. Hayfields can be
results were in the responsive range, 5-acre sampled after any cutting. Regardless of when you
grid point sampling may not be the best sample, it is best to be consistent from one year to
choice of sampling techniques. This is because the next.
5-acre grid point sampling may not adequately Winter sampling, or sampling when the soil is
represent the variability within a field; and a frozen, is permissible only when it is possible to
comparatively small change in soil test level of take a uniform boring or core of soil to the appro-
5–10 ppm could mean a large change in the priate depth. This may require using a portable
amount of nutrients recommended. For small power boring tool. Using a pick or spade to
fields and contour strips, taking a few 5-acre remove a few chunks of frozen soil from the
grid point samples in each field and averaging surface will give inaccurate results.
them likely does not provide a very representa-
tive sample of the field. Additionally, the total How to take soil samples
number of samples may be small enough that Certain government agency programs require
none of them can be eliminated from the field nutrient management plans prepared according to
average if it appears that one is an outlier. the current USDA Wisconsin Natural Resources
Smart (zone or directed) sampling — Another Conservation Service (NRCS) nutrient manage-
approach gaining support among researchers ment standard (590). Soil sampling and testing
is smart sampling, also known as directed or procedures and nutrient application rates based
management zone sampling. This approach on these soil tests must be consistent with the pro-
uses information that has been collected using visions of the 590 standard to be eligible for many
other precision agricultural technologies such cost-sharing programs. These provisions currently
as yield maps, aerial photographs of bare soil include following the soil sampling techniques just
or crop canopy, or soil electrical conductivity outlined and which are contained in Extension
measurements. Directed sampling evaluates publication Sampling Soils for Testing (A2100), soil
the spatial distribution of several factors that testing by a Wisconsin Certified Laboratory, and
may influence nutrient availability and crop use of nutrient application rates consistent with
productivity to help define sampling areas with the guidelines contained in this publication.
similar characteristics. With previous The following steps will help you take full advan-
comments in mind, either the W pattern or tage of the Wisconsin nutrient application guide-
grid-point method can be used to collect lines and must be followed to be consistent with
samples within management zones. If the the 590 standard.
results of grid or management zone sampling
do not warrant variable-rate application (for
example, relatively little between-sample varia-
tion), average them to determine the appropri-
ate single-rate treatment.
Use a sampling probe or auger to take samples. 8. Fill out the soil information sheet. A completely
You can obtain these tools on loan from most and carefully filled out information sheet will
county Extension offices or fertilizer dealers. provide the most accurate nutrient recommen-
1. If manure or crop residues are on the surface, dations.
push them aside to keep from including them Always include a soil test information sheet when
in the soil sample. submitting soil samples to a laboratory for testing.
2. Insert the probe or auger into the soil to plow The UW Soil and Plant Analysis Lab soil test infor-
depth or at least 6 inches. To aid year-to-year mation sheet can be found online at:
comparisons, it is important to take repeated http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu/madison/files/rfs_front.
samplings from the same field to exactly the pdf.
same depth. Provide the soil name and field history whenever
3. Take at least 10 soil cores or borings for each possible for more accurate recommendations.
composite sample and, preferably, at least two Information about legume crops previously grown
composite samples for every field. For non- on the soil and manure application history is
responsive fields greater than 5 acres in size, essential for proper nutrient crediting from these
obtain, at a minimum, the number of samples sources. Include soil names from county soil survey
specified in Table 2.1. For responsive fields, as reports or individual farm conservation plans. For
well as all fields that have not been sampled in assistance obtaining this information, contact your
the past 4 years, take one composite sample for county Extension agent, Natural Resource
every 5 acres. Conservation Service (NRCS) district conservation-
ist, or the Land Conservation Committee (LCC).
4. Avoid sampling the following:
■ Dead furrows or back furrows. How often to sample
■ Lime, sludge, or manure piles. Most fields should be retested at least every 4
years to monitor soil fertility levels so that nutrient
■ Animal droppings.
deficiencies are prevented and excess nutrient
■ Near fences or roads. accumulation is avoided. Crop nutrient removals
■ Rows where fertilizer has been banded. over a 4-year period in most cropping systems will
■ Eroded knolls. not change soil test levels enough to affect recom-
mended nutrient application rates. Exceptions
■ Low spots.
include the sands and loamy sands, which should
■ Where stalks or large bales were stacked. be tested every 2 years. Also, depending on the
■ Headlands. initial soil test phosphorus and potassium levels,
cropping systems such as high-yielding corn silage
■ Areas that vary widely from the rest of the
or alfalfa may require more frequent testing to
field in color, fertility, slope, texture (sandy,
adequately monitor changes in soil test levels.
clayey, etc.), drainage, or productivity. If the
distinctive area is large enough to receive
What to do with soil samples
lime or fertilizer treatments different from
The soil samples and a completed soil information
the rest of the field, sample it separately.
sheet can be taken to your county Extension office
5. Thoroughly mix the sample, then place about 2 for forwarding to certified soil testing laboratory.
cups of soil in a sample bag. Alternatively, samples can be sent directly to the
6. Identify the bag with your name, field identifi- soil testing laboratory or delivered in person.
cation, and sample number. To receive nutrient application rate guidelines con-
7. Record the field and sample location on an sistent with those found in this publication, submit
aerial photo or sketch of the farm and retain your soil samples to one of the Wisconsin certified
for your reference. Record the GPS coordinates, laboratories. The College of Agricultural and Life
if applicable. Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the
CHAPTER
2
University of Wisconsin-Extension, through the

Department of Soil Science operates soil testing Tillage system considerations
laboratories at Madison and Marshfield. Several when sampling
private laboratories are also certified, and are listed Moldboard plowing. Sample to the depth of
at http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu/wdatcp.htm. To tillage.
become certified, laboratories must use the soil Chisel plowing and offset disking. Take soil
testing methods and nutrient application rate samples to 3⁄4 of the tillage depth. When
guidelines specified by the Wisconsin Department possible, take soil samples before spring or
of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection fall tillage. Sampling before tillage lets you
(WDATCP). Certified laboratories must also meet determine the sampling depth more accu-
quality control standards through periodic analysis rately and you can avoid fertilizer bands
of quality control soil samples. applied for the previous crop.
To have your soil tested by the university, send Till-plant and ridge tillage. Sample ridges to
your samples to either of the laboratories listed the 6-inch depth and furrows (between
below: rows) to a depth of 4 inches. Combine equal
Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory numbers of soil cores from ridges and
8452 Mineral Point Road furrows to make up the composite sample.
Verona, WI 53593-8696 No-till. Fields that have not been tilled for
(608) 262-4364 5 years or more may develop an acid layer
Soil and Forage Analysis Laboratory on the surface from the use of nitrogen fer-
8396 Yellowstone Drive tilizer. This acid layer could reduce the effec-
Marshfield, WI 54449-8401 tiveness of triazine herbicides.
(715) 387-2523 Unincorporated phosphorus (P) and potas-
sium (K) are also likely to build up in the
surface soil. If an acid layer is suspected, take
a separate sample to a depth of only
2 inches. When sending the soil to the lab,
indicate that the sampling depth was only
2 inches. This sample will be tested for pH
only, unless P and K are specifically
requested. For fertilizer recommendations,
take a separate sample to a depth of 6–7
inches. Fertilizer recommendations require
this sampling depth because fertilizer cali-
bration studies are based on plow-depth
sampling. Sample between rows to avoid fer-
tilizer bands.
3
Chapter — Soil test procedures
T
he routine soil testing program for laborato-
ries using the Wisconsin soil test recommen-
dation program includes soil pH, organic
matter content, lime requirement (buffer pH), and
extractable phosphorus and potassium. In
addition, special tests may be requested for
nitrate-nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, sulfur,
nitrogen, total organic carbon, and heavy metals
(arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron,
lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
zinc).
In Wisconsin, a soil testing laboratory must be cer-
tified by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP) if
boron, manganese, and zinc. Soil tests for copper, results are to be used in nutrient management
iron, molybdenum, and chlorine have not been cal- planning or related to any government cost
ibrated to crop response in Wisconsin; these nutri- sharing program. A current list of the Wisconsin
ents are rarely deficient in Wisconsin soils. Certified Laboratories can be found at
Several other tests can be performed on request. http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu/wdatcp.htm. Table 3.1
These tests include physical analysis for particle briefly describes the procedures used for each soil
size distribution (% sand, % silt, % clay), exchange- test performed at University of Wisconsin laborato-
able sodium, soluble salts, total nitrogen, inorganic ries and other WDATCP-approved laboratories.
Table 3.1. Analytical procedures for soil tests performed at University of Wisconsin-Extension
laboratories and Wisconsin DATCP-approved private laboratories.
Soil test Procedures a

Soil pH Prepare a 1:1 soil to water mixture and measure the pH with
a glass electrode.
Buffer pH (BpH) Prepare a 1:1:1 soil:water:Sikora buffer mixture and measure the pH
with a glass electrode.
Phosphorus (P) Extract with Bray 1, develop color and measure with a photoelectric
colorimeter.
Potassium (K) Extract with Bray 1, and measure with atomic absorption or flame
photometer.
Organic matter (OM) Loss of weight on ignition at 360°C for 2 hours.
OM = 0.07 + 0.89 (LOI) b
Calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), Extract with neutral 1 N c ammonium acetate and measure
sodium (Na) with atomic absorption or flame photometer.
Estimated cation exchange Calculate from soil test levels for Ca, Mg, K;
capacity (CEC) Est CEC = ppm Ca + ppm Mg + ppm K x 5 grams
( 200 122 391 )
wt of soil in 5-gram scoop
Sulfur (S) Extract with 500 ppm phosphorus in acetic acid, develop turbidity,
and measure with a photoelectric nephelometer.
Boron (B) Extract with hot water, develop color, and measure with a
photoelectric colorimeter.
Manganese (Mn) Extract with 0.1 N c phosphoric acid and measure by atomic absorption.
Zinc (Zn) Extract with 0.1 N c hydrochloric acid and measure by atomic absorption.
Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3--N) Extract soil with 2 N c KCl and analyze by flow injection.
Physical analysis Prepare 50 or 100 g soil with dispersing solution and measure
(% sand, silt, clay) with hydrometer.
Soluble salts Prepare 1:2 soil to water mixture and measure with conductivity bridge.
a Detailed descriptions of the procedures can be found at: http://uwlab.soils.wisc.edu/.
b LOI = percent weight loss on ignition,
c N = normal solution
CHAPTER
3
Soil test values for phosphorus and potassium are
Soil test procedures

interpreted from very low (VL) to excessively high
(EH). The category is based on the soil test value in
combination with the crop demand level. The
probability of a yield response to applied nutrients
is much greater for the very low and low cate-
gories than for the high, very high and excessively
high categories. Probability of a response to fertil-
izer applied at each soil test category is described
in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Codes and descriptions of soil test interpretation categories.
Probability of a yield
——Category—— increase to applied
Name Symbol Description nutrients (%)
Very low VL Substantial quantities of nutrients are required >90
to optimize crop yield. Buildup should occur over
a 5- to 8-year period. Response to secondary or
micronutrients is likely or possible for high or
medium demanding crops, respectively.
Low L Somewhat more nutrients than those removed 60–90
by crop harvest are required. Response to secondary
or micronutrients is possible for high demanding crops,
but unlikely for medium or low demanding crops.
Optimum Opt This is economically and environmentally the most 30–60
desirable soil test category. Yields are optimized at
nutrient additions approximately equal to amounts
removed in the harvested portion of the crop.
Response to secondary or micronutrients is unlikely
regardless of crop demand level.
High H Some nutrients are required, and returns are 5–30
optimized at rates equal to about one-half of
nutrient removal by the crop.
Very high VH Used only for potassium. Soil tests are above the 2–5
optimum range and gradual drawdown is
recommended. Approximately one-fourth of nutrient
removal is recommended.
Excessively EH No fertilizer is recommended for most soils since <2
high the soil test level will remain in the non-responsive
range for at least two to three years. On medium-
and fine-textured soils, a small amount of starter
fertilizer is advised for some crops (for more detail,
see Chapter 10 Starter Fertilizer).
4
Chapter — Soil and crop information
S
everal key components are necessary to cus-
tomize a fertilizer and lime recommendation
to each field’s needs. The first component, a
current soil test, has already been discussed in
Chapter 2 Sampling Soils for Testing. Two other
necessary components include specific informa-
tion about the soil and crops to be grown.
If a soil series name is not known, a more generic
fertilizer and lime recommendation can be made
using county-based information. A soil group can
be determined using Table 4.2.
Crops
There are four key items unique to each crop
which impact phosphorus and potassium fertilizer
Soil recommendations and lime requirement.
Soil groups are based upon a soil’s texture (per- 1. The phosphorus and potassium demand
centage of sand, silt and clay), clay mineralogy, and level for the crop. Each crop requires varying
organic matter content. Soil groups are used to levels of available phosphorus and potassium
help interpret phosphorus and potassium soil test to optimize yield. Crops are placed into one of
levels. There are six primary soil groups in six phosphorus and potassium demand levels
Wisconsin; five for mineral soils (A, B, C, D, and E) based on their relative nutrient needs: (1) corn;
and one for organic soils (O). The approximate (2) soybeans and low demand level field crops;
location of each soil group is shown in Figure 4.1. (3) alfalfa, corn silage, irrigated field crops, and
There is one secondary soil group which is used low demand level vegetable crops; (4) red
only for interpreting soil test phosphorus levels clover and medium demand level field crops;
and encompasses mineral soils with a pH ≥ 7.5 and (5) high demand level vegetable crops; and
organic matter content ≤ 10 %; these are group X (6) potatoes. Table 4.3 identifies the specific
soils. Group X was developed as a means for identi- demand levels for various crops.
fying soils which are believed to contain enough
2. The amount of phosphate and potash
free calcium carbonate that the Bray 1 soil test
removed in the harvested portion of the
extractant may be neutralized and result in an
crop is used to establish the amount of fertil-
under-estimation of plant available phosphorus. A
izer to apply. Table 4.3 lists the amount of P2O5
soil may belong to group X for soil test phospho-
and K2O removed in pounds per unit of yield.
rus interpretation, but will belong to one of soil
groups A–E for soil test potassium interpretation. 3. The yield goal for each crop is required to
The primary soil group alone indicates the soil determine the application rate of phosphate
nutrient buffer capacity. and potash fertilizer for all crops and the
nitrogen fertilizer rate for potatoes. Realistic
Table 4.1 provides the soil group for each mapped
yield goals should not be higher than 10 to
soil series in Wisconsin. Also included in this table
15% above the previous 3–5 year field average.
are other properties that are unique to each soil
Typical yield ranges and the moisture content
series, including subsoil sulfur code and corn and
at which yield is reported are provided in Table
alfalfa yield potential codes. The subsoil sulfur
4.3. If the yield level for corn or alfalfa is not
code is a relative ranking of the amount of sulfur
known for a particular field, use the county-
contained in the subsoil and is used in determin-
based corn and alfalfa yield potentials
ing a sulfur recommendation. Corn and alfalfa yield
provided in Table 4.2. To assign a yield goal to a
potentials are relative rankings of a soil’s ability to
yield potential use the midpoint of the range
produce high yields of each crop. Several factors
provided in Table 4.4.
were involved in determining the yield potential of
each soil series including: water holding capacity, 4. Target pH is the optimal pH for production of
drainage class, depth of root zone, and length of a particular crop. Target pH is used to deter-
growing season. mine lime requirement and other pH adjust-
ments. Refer to Table 4.3 for target pH values
for various crops.
CHAPTER
4
Figure 4.1. Approximate location of predominant soil groups.
Soil and crop information

BAYFIELD
DOUGLAS
ASHLAND IRON
WASHBURN VILAS
BURNETT PRICE
ONIEDA
FLORENCE
SAWYER
POLK
BARRON FOREST
RUSK
LINCOLN MARINETTE
LANGLADE
TAYLOR
ST. CROIX
CHIPPEWA MENOMINEE
MARATHON OCONTO
DUNN CLARK
PIERCE EAU CLAIRE SHAWANO DOOR
PEPIN
KEWAUNEE
WAUPACA
BUFFALO BROWN
TREMPEALEAU
OUTAGAMIE
WOOD PORTAGE
JACKSON
JUNEAU ADAMS WAUSHARA CALUMET MANITOWOC
WINNEBAGO
LA CROSSE MONROE
GREEN LAKE
MARQUETTE
FOND DU LAC SHEBOYGAN

VERNON
SAUK
OZAUKEE
WASHINGTON
RICHLAND COLUMBIA
CRAWFORD
DODGE
MILWAUKEE
JEFFERSON
IOWA DANE
WAUKESHA
ROCK RACINE
GRANT LAFAYETTE GREEN
KENOSHA
WALWORTH
Soil OM Hues a Texture

Legend group Description (%) pH (color) code Location
Southern “forested” medium- and southern
A < 3.0 < 7.5 less pink 2
fine-textured soils Wisconsin
Southern “prairie” medium- and 3.1- southern
B < 7.5 less pink 2 Wisconsin
fine-textured soils 10.0
Red medium- and fine-
C
textured soils
_ 10.0
< < 7.5 more pink 4 throughout state
Northern medium- and fine- northern and

D textured soils
_ 10.0
< < 7.5 less pink 2 central Wisconsin
E
Sandy coarse-textured soils
_ 10.0
< all _ 1 throughout state
(sands and loamy sands)
_ small pockets
O Organic soils (mucks and peats) > 10.0 all 3 throughout state
X High pH soils b _ 10.0

< _ 7.5
>
_ _ throughout state
a
Hues are relative to Munsell color 7.5YR.
b
Used only with phosphorus recommendations.
Table 4.1. Codes assigned to Wisconsin soils for soil group, subsoil sulfur, and corn and alfalfa yield potentials.
Subsoil Yield potential Subsoil Yield potential
Soil Soil sulfur coded Soil Soil sulfur coded
Soil name numbera groupb codec Corn Alfalfa Soil name numbera groupb codec Corn Alfalfa
Abbaye 1 D L 4 4 Augwood 40 E L 4 4
Absco 2 E L 4 4 Ausable 713 E L 4 4
Abscota 3 E L 4 4 Aztalan 41 B M 1 2
Ackmore 4 A H 1 2 Bach 42 C L 3 3
Adder 5 O H 2 4 Badriver 43 C M 4 3
Adolph 6 D L 4 4 Balmoral 714 B M 1 1
Adrian 7 O H 2 4 Banat 44 D L 4 4
Aftad 8 D M 3 3 Baraboo 45 A M 2 3
Ahmeek 9 D H 4 3 Barremills 700 B M 1 1
Akan 10 A M 3 3 Barrington (See Zurich)
Alango 710 C M 4 3 Barronett 46 D M 3 3
Alban 11 D M 3 3 Barry 47 B M 2 3
Alcona 12 D M 3 3 Basco 48 B M 3 3
Aldo 13 E L 4 4 Batavia 49 B M 1 1
Algansee 14 E L 4 4 Bearpen 50 A M 1 2
Allendale 15 D M 4 4 Beartree 715 D L 4 4
Allouez (See Elderon) Beauprey 51 C M 3 4
Almena 16 D H 3 2 Beaverbay 716 D L 3 3
Alpena 17 E L 4 4 Beavercreek 701 A L 4 4
Alstad 18 D M 3 3 Beecher 52 B M 1 2
Altdorf 19 D M 3 4 Bellechester 53 E L 4 4
Altoona (See Siouxcreek) Belleville 54 E L 3 4
Amasa 711 D M 3 3 Bellevue 55 B M 2 2
Amery 20 D M 3 3 Bergland 56 C M 4 4
Amnicon 21 C M 4 3 Bertrand 57 A M 1 1
Angelica 22 C L 3 3 Beseman 58 O H 4 4
Anigon 23 D M 3 2 Bevent (See Sultz)
Ankeny 24 B L 2 2 Bigisland 717 E L 4 4
Annalake 25 D M 3 3 Billett 59 A M 3 3
Annriver 712 D M 4 4 Billyboy 60 D M 3 3
Antigo 26 D M 3 2 Bilmod 61 A M 3 3
Anton 27 C M 4 3 Bilson 62 A M 3 3
Arbutus 28 E L 4 4 Bjorkland 63 E L 4 4
Arenzville 29 A L 1 1 Blackhammer 774 A M 1 2
Argonne 30 D M 4 3 Blackriver 64 D M 3 3
Arland 31 D M 3 3 Blomford (See Brevort)
Arnheim 32 E L 4 4 Blount 65 A M 2 2
Ashdale 33 B H 1 1 Bluffton 66 D M 3 3
Ashippun 34 B L 1 2 Boaz 67 A M 2 2
Ashkum 35 B M 1 3 Boguscreek 68 A M 1 1
Ashwabay 36 E L 4 4 Bohemian 69 D M 4 3
Atterberry 37 A M 1 2 Bonduel 70 C M 3 3
Au Gres 38 E L 4 3 Boone 71 E L 4 4
Auburndale 39 D M 3 3 Boots 72 O H 2 4
12
Table 4.1. Codes assigned to Wisconsin soils for soil group, subsoil sulfur, and corn and alfalfa yield potentials (continued).
Boplain 73 E L 4 4 Channahon 104 B M 4 4
Borea 74 C M 4 3 Channing 723 D M 4 3
Borth 75 C M 3 2 Charlevoix 105 D M 3 4
Bowstring 718 O H 4 4 Chaseburg 106 A L 1 1
Boyer 76 A M 3 4 Chelmo 107 D M 4 4
Braham 719 E L 4 3 Chelsea 108 E L 4 4
Brander 77 D M 3 2 Chequamegon 724 D M 3 3
Branstad 78 D M 3 2 Chetek 109 E L 4 4
Brems 79 E L 4 4 Chickney 110 D M 4 3
Brennyville 702 D M 4 3 Chicog 725 E L 4 4
Brevort 80 E L 3 3 Chinwhisker 726 E L 4 4
Brice 81 E L 4 4 Chippeny 111 O H 4 4
Brickton 82 D M 3 3 Churchtown 112 A M 1 1
Briggsville 83 A M 2 1 Citypoint 113 O H 4 4
Brill 84 D M 3 2 Clemens 727 D L 4 4
Brimley 85 D M 4 3 Clifford (See Magnor)
Brinkman 703 A M 1 1 Cloquet (See Keweenaw)
Brodale 86 B L 3 3 Clyde 114 B M 1 3
Brokaw (See Santiago) Coffeen 115 B L 1 2
Brookston 87 B M 1 3 Coffton 116 B L 1 2
Brophy (See Greenwood) Coloma 117 E L 4 4
Brownchurch 720 A M 1 1 Colwood 118 B M 2 3
Brownstone 88 E L 4 4 Comstock 119 D M 3 3
Bruce 89 D M 4 4 Conover 120 A M 1 2
Burkhardt 90 E M 4 4 Cormant 121 E L 4 4
Bushville 91 D M 4 3 Cornucopia 122 C M 4 3
Cable 92 D M 4 4 Cosad 123 C L 4 3
Cadiz 93 A M 2 1 Council 124 A L 1 1
Calamine 94 B H 2 4 Cress 125 D L 4 4
Campia 95 D M 2 2 Crex 126 E L 4 4
Capitola 96 D M 4 4 Cromwell 127 D L 4 4
Carbondale 97 O H 3 4 Crossett 128 C M 3 3
Carlisle 98 O H 1 4 Croswell 129 E L 4 4
Carlos (See Rondeau) Croswood 130 E L 4 4
Caron (See Muskego) Crystal Lake 131 D M 3 2
Caryville 99 B L 4 4 Cublake 132 E L 4 3
Casco 100 A L 3 3 Cunard 133 D M 3 3
Cathro 101 O H 3 4 Curran 134 A M 1 2
Cebana 721 D M 4 4 Cushing 135 D M 3 2
Ceresco 102 B L 2 2 Cutaway 728 E L 3 3
Chabeneau 722 D M 3 3 Cuttre 136 C M 4 3
Champion 103 D M 4 3 Dagwagi 137 C M 4 4
a Soil numbers are not listed numerically because soils series names have b Description of soil groups are given in Figure 4.1.
been added since this coding scheme was initiated in 1998. Some soil c Subsoil sulfur codes are defined in Table 8.1.
series do not have numbers because these soils were eliminated during d Corn and alfalfa yield potential: 1 = very high; 2 = high; 3 = medium;
mapping/remapping by USDA-NRCS. For soil series names without a
soil number, use the soil series described. 4 = low. For yield ranges associated with these categories, see Table 4.4.
13
Dairyland 729 E L 4 4 Durand 175 B M 1 1
Dakota 138 B M 2 3 Dusler (See Oesterle)
Dalbo (See Taylor) Eaglebay 176 C M 4 3
Dancy 139 E M 4 4 East Lake (See Vilas)
Darroch 140 B M 1 2 Eauclaire 177 E L 4 3
Dawsil 141 O H 4 4 Eaupleine (See Freeon)
Dawson 142 O H 4 4 Edmund 178 B M 3 3
Dechamps 143 E L 4 4 Edwards 179 O H 3 4
Deerton 144 E L 4 4 Elbaville 180 A M 2 1
Deford 145 E L 4 4 Elburn 181 B M 1 2
Del Rey 146 A M 1 2 Elderon 182 E L 4 4
Dells 147 A M 2 3 Eleroy 183 A M 2 2
Delton 148 E L 3 3 Eleva 184 A M 3 2
Demontreville 149 E L 4 3 Elevasil 185 A M 4 3
Denomie 150 C M 4 3 Elkmound 186 E M 4 4
Denrock 151 B M 2 2 Ella 187 A M 1 1
Derinda 152 A M 3 3 Elliott 188 B M 1 2
Detour (See Solona) Ellwood 189 C M 3 3
Dickinson 153 B M 3 3 Elm Lake 190 E M 4 4
Dickman 154 B M 4 4 Elvers 191 A M 2 3
Dillon (See Newton) Emmert 192 E L 4 4
Dobie 155 D M 3 3 Emmet 193 C L 3 2
Docklake 156 D M 3 3 Ensign (See Bonduel)
Dodge 157 A M 2 2 Ensley 194 C L 3 3
Dodgeville 158 B M 2 2 Etter (See Military)
Dody 159 E M 4 4 Ettrick 195 B L 1 3
Dolph 160 D M 3 3 Evart 196 E L 4 4
Dora 730 O H 4 4 Fabius 197 B L 3 3
Dorchester 161 A M 1 2 Fairchild 198 E L 4 4
Dorerton 162 A M 3 3 Fairport 199 C L 3 2
Doritty 163 A M 3 2 Fallcreek 200 D M 3 3
Downs 164 A M 1 1 Farrington 201 E L 4 4
Drammen 165 E L 4 4 Fayette 202 A M 1 1
Dresden 166 A L 2 2 Fenander 732 E L 4 4
Drummer 167 B M 1 3 Fence 203 D M 4 2
Dryburg 168 C M 4 2 Fenwood 204 D H 3 2
Drylanding 731 E L 4 4 Festina 704 A M 1 1
Dubuque 169 A M 3 2 Fifield (See Worcester)
Duel 170 E L 4 4 Finchford 205 E L 4 4
Duelm 171 E L 4 4 Fisk 206 E L 3 3
Duluth (See Amery) Fivepoints 733 A H 3 2
Dunbarton 172 A H 4 4 Flagg 207 A M 1 1
Dunnbot 173 A M 2 2 Flagriver 208 C M 4 3
Dunnville 174 B L 3 3 Flambeau 209 D M 3 2
14
Flink 210 E L 4 4 Grays 245 A M 1 1
Floyd 211 B M 1 2 Greenridge 705 A M 1 1
Forada 212 B M 3 3 Greenwood 246 O H 4 4
Fordum 213 D M 3 4 Grellton 247 A M 1 1
Forkhorn 214 A M 3 3 Grettum 248 E L 4 4
Fox 215 A M 2 2 Griswold 249 B L 2 2
Foxpaw 734 D M 4 4 Guenther 250 E M 4 3
Frechette 216 C M 3 3 Halder 251 D M 3 3
Freeon 217 D M 3 2 Happyhollow 706 C M 4 4
Freer 218 D M 3 2 Hatley 252 D M 3 3
Fremstadt 735 E L 4 4 Haugen 253 D M 3 3
Freya 219 E L 4 4 Haustrup 740 D L 4 4
Friendship 220 E L 4 4 Hayfield 254 A M 2 2
Friesland 221 B M 1 1 Hayriver 255 D M 4 3
Froberg 223 C M 4 3 Hebron 256 A M 1 2
Frogbay 222 C M 4 3 Hegge 257 C M 4 4
Frogcreek 736 D M 3 3 Hemlock 258 E L 4 4
Gaastra 224 D M 4 3 Hennepin 259 A L 4 3
Gale 225 A M 3 2 Herbster 260 C M 4 3
Gander 226 E L 4 4 Hersey 261 A M 1 1
Gaphill 227 A L 3 3 Hesch 262 B L 3 3
Gardenvale 228 A M 3 2 Hessel (See Alstad)
Garne 229 E L 4 4 Hibbing 263 C M 4 3
Garwin 230 B M 1 3 Highbridge 264 C M 4 3
Gastrow 231 D M 4 3 Hiles 265 D H 3 3
Gay ( See Capitola) Hillcrest (See Downs)
Gichigami 232 C M 4 3 Hitt (See Dodgeville)
Giese 737 D M 4 4 Hixton 266 A M 3 3
Gilford 233 A M 2 3 Hochheim 267 B L 2 2
Gillingham 738 A M 4 3 Hoop 268 B L 3 3
Glendenning 234 D M 3 3 Hoopeston 269 B L 3 3
Glendora 235 E L 4 4 Hortonville 270 C M 2 1
Glenflora 739 D H 3 3 Houghton 271 O H 1 4
Gogebic 236 D M 4 3 Hubbard 272 E L 4 4
Goodman 237 D M 3 2 Humbird 273 D L 4 4
Goodwit 238 D M 3 2 Huntsville 274 B M 1 1
Gosil 239 E L 4 4 Icehouse 741 D M 4 4
Gotham 240 E L 4 4 Impact 275 E M 4 4
Granby 241 E L 4 4 Indus 742 C M 3 2
Grassylake 242 D M 3 3 Ingalls 276 E L 4 4
Graycalm 243 E L 4 4 Ionia 277 A M 1 2
Grayling 244 E L 4 4 Iosco 278 E L 4 3
series do not have numbers because these soils were eliminated d Corn and alfalfa yield potential: 1 = very high; 2 = high; 3 = medium;
during mapping/remapping by USDA-NRCS. For soil series names
without a soil number, use the soil series described. 4 = low. For yield ranges associated with these categories, see Table 4.4.
15
Iron River (See Wabeno) Kranski 318 E L 4 3
Ironrun 279 E L 4 4 La Farge 319 A M 2 2
Isan (See Newson) Lablatz 707 C L 3 3
Isanti (See Newson) Lafont (See Sarona)
Ishpeming 280 E L 4 4 Lamartine 321 A M 1 2
Jackson 281 A M 1 1 Lambeau 708 A M 1 1
Jasper 282 B M 2 2 Lamont 322 E M 3 4
Jewett 283 B M 3 2 Langlade 323 D H 3 2
Joy 284 B M 1 2 Laona 324 D M 4 3
Juda 285 B M 1 1 Lapeer 325 A M 3 3
Judson 286 B L 1 1 Lapoin 326 C M 4 3
Juneau 287 A M 1 1 Lara 327 E L 4 4
Kakagon 288 C M 4 4 Lawler 328 B M 2 2
Kalamazoo (See Fox) Lawson 329 B M 1 2
Kalkaska (See Vilas) Leelanau (See Menominee)
Kalmarville 289 A M 4 4 Lena (See Houghton)
Kane 290 B M 2 2 Lenawee (See Montgomery)
Karlin 291 E L 4 4 Lenroot 744 E L 4 4
Karlsborg 292 E L 4 3 Leola 330 E L 4 4
Kato 293 B M 1 3 Lerch 331 C M 4 4
Kaukauna 294 C M 2 1 Leroy 332 A L 3 2
Kegonsa 295 B L 2 2 Lindquist 745 E L 4 4
Kellogg 296 E L 4 3 Lindstrom 333 B M 1 1
Keltner 297 B M 2 2 Lino 334 E M 4 4
Kendall 298 A M 1 2 Linwood (See Palms)
Kennan 299 D M 4 2 Littleton (See Lawson)
Keowns 300 B H 2 3 Lobo 335 O H 4 4
Kert 301 D M 3 3 Locke 336 B M 3 3
Keshena 302 C M 3 3 Lomira 337 A M 2 2
Kevilar 303 A M 4 3 Longrie 338 C M 3 3
Kewaunee 304 C M 2 1 Lorenzo 339 B M 3 3
Keweenaw 305 E L 4 4 Lows 340 B M 3 3
Keyesville 743 A L 4 4 Loxley 341 O M 4 4
Kibbie 306 B M 2 2 Loyal 342 D M 3 2
Kickapoo 307 A L 3 3 Ludington 343 E L 4 4
Kidder 308 A L 2 2 Lundeen 746 D M 3 3
Kingsville 310 E M 3 3 Lunds (See Worcester)
Kinross 311 E M 4 4 Lupton 344 O H 4 4
Kiva 312 E L 4 4 Lutzke 345 A M 3 3
Knowles 313 A L 3 2 Mackinac (See Charlevoix)
Kolberg 314 C M 3 2 Magnor 346 D M 3 2
Komro 315 E L 4 4 Magroc 347 D M 3 2
Korobago 316 C L 3 3 Mahalasville 348 B M 1 3
Kost 317 E L 4 4 Mahtomedi 349 E L 4 4
16
Mahtowa (See Capitola) Merwin (See Greenwood)
Maincreek 747 D M 3 3 Metea 386 E L 3 3
Majik 350 E L 4 4 Metonga 387 D M 4 3
Makwa 748 D L 4 4 Miami 388 A L 2 2
Manawa 351 C M 2 2 Michagamme 389 D M 3 3
Mancelona 352 E L 4 4 Mickle 751 B M 1 1
Manistee 353 E L 4 3 Mifflin 390 A L 2 2
Manitowish 354 D L 4 4 Milaca 752 D M 3 3
Mann 355 D M 3 3 Milford 391 B M 1 3
Maplehurst 356 D M 3 2 Military 392 A L 3 3
Maraglade (See Magnor) Milladore 393 D M 3 2
Marathon 357 D H 3 2 Millerville (See Greenwood)
Marcellon 358 B M 2 3 Millington 394 B M 1 3
Markesan 359 B M 2 2 Millsdale 395 B M 2 4
Markey 360 O H 4 4 Milton 396 A M 3 2
Markham 361 B M 2 1 Mindoro 397 E L 4 4
Marshan 362 B M 2 3 Minocqua 398 D M 4 4
Marshfield 363 D M 3 3 Miskoaki 399 C M 4 3
Martha 749 D M 3 3 Moberg 400 D L 4 4
Martinton 364 B M 1 2 Monico 401 D M 3 2
Matherton 365 B L 2 2 Montello 402 B M 2 1
Maumee 366 E L 4 4 Montgomery 403 B M 2 3
Mayville 367 A M 1 1 Moodig 404 D M 4 3
McHenry 368 A M 2 2 Mooselake (See Rifle)
McMillan 750 E L 4 3 Moppet 405 D M 4 3
Meadland 369 D M 3 2 Moquah 406 D M 4 3
Mecan 370 A L 3 3 Mora 407 D M 4 3
Mecosta 371 E L 4 4 Morganlake 408 E L 4 3
Medary 372 A M 2 2 Morley 409 C M 2 1
Meehan 373 E L 4 4 Morocco 410 E L 4 4
Meenon 374 E L 4 3 Mosel 411 A M 2 2
Menahga 375 E L 4 4 Mosinee 412 D L 4 3
Menasha 376 C M 2 3 Moundville 413 E L 4 4
Mendota 377 B M 2 2 Mt. Carroll 414 A M 1 1
Menomin 378 A M 2 3 Mudlake 415 D M 4 3
Menominee 379 E L 4 3 Mundelein 416 B M 1 2
Mequithy 380 D M 4 3 Munising (See Gogebic)
Mequon 381 C M 2 2 Munuscong 417 C M 4 4
Meridian 382 A M 3 3 Muscatine 418 B M 1 2
Merimod 383 A M 3 2 Muscoda 753 A M 3 3
Merit 384 A M 3 2 Muskego 419 O H 3 4
Merrillan 385 D M 4 4 Mussey 420 B L 3 4
17
Mylrea 421 D M 3 2 Omena 458 D M 3 3
Myrtle 422 A M 1 1 Omro 459 C M 2 2
Nadeau 423 D L 4 3 Onamia (See Rosholt)
Nahma 424 C M 4 4 Onaway 460 C L 3 2
Namur 425 D M 4 4 Ontonagon 461 C M 4 3
Navan 426 B M 1 4 Orienta (See Rimer)
Nebago 427 C M 4 3 Orion 462 A M 1 2
Neconish 428 E L 4 3 Oronto 463 C M 4 3
Neda 429 A M 2 2 Oshkosh 464 C M 2 2
Neenah 430 C M 2 2 Oshtemo 465 A M 3 3
Nemadji (See Au Gres) Osseo (See Orion)
Nenno 431 B M 2 3 Ossian 466 B H 1 3
Neopit 432 D M 4 2 Ossmer 467 D M 3 3
Nester 433 C M 3 2 Ostrander 468 B M 1 1
Newaygo (See Padus) Otter 469 B M 1 3
Newglarus 434 A H 3 2 Otterholt 470 D M 3 2
Newlang 435 E L 4 4 Owosso (See Kidder)
Newood 436 D M 4 3 Ozaukee 471 C M 2 2
Newot 437 D M 4 3 Padus 472 D M 4 3
Newson 438 E L 4 4 Padwet 473 D M 4 3
Newton 439 E L 4 4 Padwood 474 D M 4 3
Newvienna (See Seaton) Paintcreek 709 A M 1 1
Nichols 440 A L 2 2 Palms 475 O H 2 4
Nickin 441 B L 3 3 Palsgrove 476 A M 1 1
Nokasippi 442 B M 4 4 Pardeeville 477 A M 3 3
Norden 443 A M 2 2 Parent (See Capitola)
Norgo 444 D M 4 4 Parkfalls 755 D M 3 3
Norrie (See Kennan) Partridge 478 E L 4 4
Northbend 445 A L 3 3 Pearl 479 E L 4 4
Northfield 446 E L 4 4 Pecatonica 480 A M 1 1
Northmound 447 D M 4 3 Pecore 481 C M 3 3
Norwalk (See Reedsburg) Peebles 482 C M 2 1
Noseum 448 E L 4 4 Pelissier 483 E L 4 4
Nuxmaruhanixete 754 B M 2 2 Pelkie 484 E L 4 4
Nymore 449 E L 4 4 Pella 485 B M 1 3
Oakville 450 E L 4 4 Pence 486 D L 4 3
Ockley 451 A M 1 1 Pepin 487 A M 1 1
Oconto 452 D L 3 3 Pequaming 488 E L 4 4
Odanah 453 C M 4 3 Perchlake 489 E L 4 4
Oesterle 454 D M 3 3 Perida 490 E L 4 4
Ogden (See Willette) Perote 491 C M 4 2
Ogle 455 B M 1 1 Pesabic 492 D M 4 3
Okee 456 E L 4 3 Peshekee 493 D M 4 4
Omega 457 E L 4 4 Peshtigo 494 C M 4 3
18
Pickford 495 C M 4 3 Roby 533 A M 2 2
Pillot 496 B H 2 2 Rockbluff 534 E L 4 4
Pinconning 497 E L 4 4 Rockbridge (See Tell)
Pistakee (See Radford) Rockdam 535 E L 4 4
Plainbo 498 E L 4 4 Rockers 536 E L 4 3
Plainfield 499 E L 4 4 Rockmarsh 757 D M 3 3
Plano 500 B M 1 1 Rockmont 537 C M 4 2
Pleine 756 D M 4 4 Rockton 538 B M 2 2
Plover 501 D M 3 3 Rodman 539 B L 4 4
Plumcreek 502 A M 3 3 Rollin (See Edwards)
Point 503 E L 3 3 Romanpoint 540 C L 4 4
Pomroy 504 E L 4 3 Rondeau 541 O H 4 4
Ponycreek 505 E L 4 4 Ronneby (See Glendenning)
Port Byron 506 B M 1 1 Roscommon 542 E L 4 4
Portwing 507 C M 4 2 Rosholt 543 D M 3 3
Poskin 508 D M 3 2 Rotamer 544 B M 2 2
Poy 509 C M 3 3 Rothschild (See Mahtomedi)
Poygan 510 C M 2 3 Rousseau 545 E L 4 4
Prebish (See Wormet) Rowley 546 B M 1 2
Prissel 511 E L 4 3 Rozellville 547 D M 3 2
Puchyan 512 E L 3 3 Rozetta 548 A M 1 1
Quarderer 513 D M 1 1 Rubicon 549 E L 4 4
Rabe 514 E L 4 3 Rudyard (See Cuttre)
Racine 515 A M 2 2 Ruse 550 D M 4 4
Radford 516 B H 2 2 Rusktown 551 A M 3 3
Rasset 517 B M 3 3 Sable 552 B M 1 4
Redrim 518 E L 4 4 Salter 553 E L 3 3
Reedsburg 519 A M 1 2 Sanborg 554 C M 4 3
Renova 520 A M 1 2 Sandbay 555 E L 4 4
Rib 521 D M 4 4 Santiago 556 D M 3 2
Ribhill 522 D M 3 3 Sargeant 557 D M 3 3
Ribriver 523 D M 3 2 Sarona 558 D M 3 3
Richford 524 E M 4 3 Sartell (See Shawano)
Richter (See Gastrow) Sarwet 559 D M 3 3
Richwood 525 B M 1 1 Sattre 560 A L 3 2
Rietbrock 526 D M 3 2 Saugatuck (See Au Gres)
Rifle 527 O H 4 4 Sawmill 561 B M 2 2
Rimer 528 E L 4 2 Saybrook 562 B M 1 1
Ringwood 529 B M 1 2 Saylesville 563 A M 2 2
Ripon 530 B M 2 2 Sayner 564 E L 4 4
Ritchey 531 A M 4 4 Schapville 565 B M 2 2
Robago 532 D M 4 3 Schramm 566 C L 4 2
19
Schweitzer 758 D M 4 4 Spoonerhill 601 E L 4 3
Scoba 567 D M 3 3 Springstead 765 E L 4 4
Sconsin 568 D M 3 3 St. Charles 602 A M 1 1
Scotah 569 E L 4 4 Stambaugh 603 D M 3 2
Scott Lake 570 D M 3 3 Stanberry 766 D M 3 3
Seaton 571 A M 1 1 Stengel 604 E L 4 4
Sebbo 572 A M 1 1 Stinnett 767 D M 3 2
Sebewa 573 B M 2 4 Stronghurst 605 A M 1 2
Sechler 574 A M 3 3 Sturgeon 606 D M 4 4
Sedgwick 575 C M 4 3 Suamico (See Willette)
Seeleyville 576 O H 3 4 Sultz 607 E L 4 4
Selkirk 577 C M 4 2 Summerville 608 D M 4 3
Seward 578 E L 4 3 Sundell (See Bonduel)
Shag 759 D M 3 3 Sunia 609 E L 4 4
Shawano 579 E L 4 4 Sunkencamp 610 E L 4 4
Sherry 580 D M 3 3 Superior 611 C M 4 2
Shiffer 581 A M 2 3 Sylvester 612 B M 3 2
Shiocton 582 D M 3 2 Symco 613 C M 2 2
Shullsburg 583 B M 2 2 Symerton 614 B M 1 2
Silverhill 584 A L 3 3 Tacoosh 768 O H 3 4
Simescreek 585 E L 4 4 Tama 615 B M 1 1
Siouxcreek 586 D M 4 3 Tarr 616 E L 4 4
Siren 760 C M 3 3 Tawas 617 O H 4 4
Sissabagama 587 E L 4 4 Taylor 618 C M 4 2
Sisson 588 A M 2 2 Tedrow 619 E L 4 4
Skanee (See Tula) Tell 620 A M 2 2
Skog 761 E L 4 3 Terrill 621 B M 1 2
Skyberg 589 A M 2 2 Thackery 622 A M 1 2
Slimlake 590 E L 4 4 Theresa 623 A M 1 1
Smestad 591 E L 4 3 Tilleda 624 C M 3 3
Soderbeck 762 D L 4 4 Tint 625 E L 4 4
Soderville 592 E L 4 3 Tintson 626 E L 4 4
Sogn 593 B L 4 4 Tipler 627 D M 4 3
Solness 594 D M 4 3 Toddville 628 B M 1 1
Solona 595 C L 3 2 Tonkey 629 D M 4 4
Sooner 596 A M 2 3 Totagatic 769 E L 4 4
Soperton 597 D M 4 3 Tourtillotte 630 E L 4 4
Spalding (See Greenwood) Tradelake 631 D M 4 3
Sparta 598 E L 4 4 Trempe 632 E L 4 4
Spear 763 D M 3 3 Trempealeau 633 B M 3 3
Spencer 599 D M 3 3 Trenary (See Sarona)
Spiderlake 764 D M 3 3 Troxel 634 B M 1 1
Spinks 600 E L 4 4 Tula 635 D M 4 3
Spirit (See Monico) Tuscola 636 A M 2 2
20
Tustin 637 E L 4 3 Wautoma 666 E L 3 3
Twinmound 638 E L 4 4 Wayka 667 D M 4 3
Udolpho (See Kane) Waymor 668 A M 3 2
Underhill (See Tilleda) Weegwas 669 E L 4 4
Urne 639 A M 4 3 Wega 670 C M 3 3
Valton 640 A M 2 2 Westville 671 A M 2 2
Vancecreek 641 D M 3 3 Whalan 672 A M 2 3
Vanzile 642 D M 3 3 Wheatley 673 E L 4 4
Varna 643 B M 2 1 Whisklake 674 D M 3 3
Vasa 644 A M 1 2 Whitehall 675 B M 2 2
Veedum 645 D M 3 3 Whittlesey 676 D M 4 3
Vejo 646 E L 4 4 Wickware 677 A M 2 2
Vesper 647 D M 3 3 Wien (See Marshfield)
Vilas 648 E L 4 4 Wildale 678 A M 3 3
Virgil 649 A M 1 2 Wildwood 679 C M 4 4
Vlasaty 650 D M 2 2 Will 680 B M 2 3
Wabeno 651 D M 4 3 Willette 681 O H 2 4
Wacousta 652 B M 1 3 Windward 772 E L 4 4
Wahtohsah 653 D M 4 3 Winnebago 682 B M 2 2
Wainola 654 E L 4 3 Winneconne 683 C M 2 2
Waiska (See Pelissier) Winneshiek 684 A M 2 3
Wakefield 655 D H 4 2 Winterfield 685 E L 4 4
Wakeley 770 E L 4 4 Withee 686 D M 3 2
Wallkill 656 A M 1 3 Worcester 687 D M 4 3
Warman 657 D M 4 4 Wormet 688 D L 4 4
Warsaw 658 B M 2 2 Worthen 689 B L 1 1
Wasepi 659 A M 3 3 Worwood 690 D M 4 3
Washtenaw 660 A M 1 3 Wozny 773 D M 4 4
Waskish (See Lobo) Wurtsmith 691 E L 4 4
Watseka 661 E L 4 4 Wyeville 692 E L 3 3
Watton (See Denomie) Wykoff 693 D L 3 3
Waucedah 771 D M 4 4 Wyocena 694 E L 3 3
Wauconda 662 A M 1 2 Yahara 695 B M 3 2
Waukechon (See Sebewa) Zeba 696 D M 4 4
Waukegan 663 B M 2 1 Zimmerman (See Graycalm)
Waupaca 664 C M 3 4 Zittau 697 C M 3 2
Wausau (See Mosinee) Zurich 698 A M 2 2
Wauseon 665 B M 3 3 Zwingle 699 A M 3 3
21
Table 4.2 County-based information for default soil groups, corn and alfalfa yield potential codes, and sulfur in precipitation.
Yield potential Sulfur in Yield potential Sulfur in

County County Soil code precipitation County County Soil code precipitation
name code groupa Corn Alfalfa lb S/a name code groupa Corn Alfalfa lb S/a
Adams 1 A,E 2 3 5 Marathon 37 D,E 3 2 5

Ashland 2 C,D 4 3 5 Marinette 38 C,D,E 3 3 5
Barron 3 D,E 3 2 5 Marquette 39 A,E 3 2 5
Bayfield 4 C,D,E 4 3 5 Menominee 40 D,E 3 2 5
Brown 5 C,E 2 1 10 Milwaukee 41 C 2 2 15
Buffalo 6 A,E 2 2 5 Monroe 42 A,E 2 2 5
Burnett 7 D,E 4 3 5 Oconto 43 C,D,E 3 2 5
Calumet 8 A,C 2 1 10 Oneida 44 D,E 4 3 5
Chippewa 9 D,E 3 3 5 Outagamie 45 C,E 2 1 10
Clark 10 D,E 3 2 5 Ozaukee 46 A,C 2 1 10
Columbia 11 A,B,E 1 1 10 Pepin 47 A,E 2 2 5
Crawford 12 A,E 2 1 5 Pierce 48 A 2 2 5
Dane 13 A,B 1 1 10 Polk 49 D,E 3 2 5
Dodge 14 A,B,C,E 1 2 10 Portage 50 D,E 2 2 5
Door 15 C,D,E 3 3 10 Price 51 D,E 4 3 5
Douglas 16 C,D,E 4 3 5 Racine 52 A,C 2 1 15
Dunn 17 A,E 2 2 5 Richland 53 A,E 2 1 5
Eau Claire 18 A,E 2 2 5 Rock 54 A,B 1 1 10
Florence 19 D 4 3 5 Rusk 55 D,E 3 2 5
Fond du Lac 20 A,B,C 2 1 10 St. Croix 56 D 2 2 5
Forest 21 D 4 3 5 Sauk 57 A,E 2 1 10
Grant 22 A,B,E 2 1 10 Sawyer 58 D,E 4 3 5
Green 23 A,B 1 1 10 Shawano 59 C,D,E 3 2 5
Green Lake 24 A,B,E 2 1 5 Sheboygan 60 A,C 2 1 10
Iowa 25 A,B,E 2 1 10 Taylor 61 D,E 3 3 5
Iron 26 D,E 4 3 5 Trempealeau 62 A,E 2 2 5
Jackson 27 A,E 2 2 5 Vernon 63 A,B,E 2 2 5
Jefferson 28 A,B 1 2 10 Vilas 64 D,E 4 3 5
Juneau 29 A,E 2 3 5 Walworth 65 A,B 1 1 10
Kenosha 30 A,C 2 1 15 Washburn 66 D,E 4 3 5
Kewaunee 31 C,D,E 2 1 10 Washington 67 A,C 2 1 10
La Crosse 32 A,E 2 2 5 Waukesha 68 A,C 2 1 10
Lafayette 33 A,B 2 1 10 Waupaca 69 C,D,E 2 2 5
Langlade 34 D,E 3 2 5 Waushara 70 C,E 2 3 5
Lincoln 35 D,E 3 2 5 Winnebago 71 A,B,C 2 1 10
Manitowoc 36 A,C 2 1 10 Wood 72 D,E 3 2 5
a The default soil groups are representative of soil groups with significant 3. If soil is medium or fine textured (texture code 2) and groups A or B
acreage in each county. If more than one soil group is listed for a are listed for a county, then use soil group A if organic matter is less
county, the correct soil group can be determined as follows. Texture than or equal to 3% or soil group B if organic matter is greater than 3%.
codes are defined in Figure 4.1. 4. If soil is medium or fine textured (texture code 2) and groups A or B
1. If organic matter is greater than 10% or if texture code = 3, then soil are not listed for a county, then use soil group D.
group O; 5. If soil is red (texture code 4), then use soil group C.
2. If soil texture is sand or loamy sand (texture code 1), then soil
group E;
22
Table 4.3. Crop codes, typical yield range, moisture content at which yield is reported, phosphorus and potassium crop
removals and demand levels, and target soil pH values for each crop.
Reporting Crop removal P and K

Yield range moisture P2O5 K2O demand Target pH
Crop name Crop code (per acre) content a (%) (lb/unit yield) level Mineral Organic
Alfalfa,
established 1 2.6–8.5 ton DM 13 60 3 6.8 —
Alfalfa, seeding 2 1.5–2.5 ton DM 13 60 3 6.8 —
Apple,
establishment b 60 all fresh — — 3 6.5 —
Asparagus 3 2000–4000 lb fresh 0.0033 0.0067 5 6.0 5.6
Barley, grain 74 25–100 bu 14.5 0.40 0.35 4 6.6 5.6
Barley, grain
+ straw c 4 25–100 bu — — — 4 6.6 5.6
Barley, straw d — 1–3 ton DM 10 32 — — —
Bean, dry
(kidney, navy) 5 10–40 cwt 18 1.2 1.6 3 6.0 5.6
Bean, lima 6 2000–5000 lb fresh 0.0086 0.017 3 6.0 5.6
Bean, snap 44 1.5–6.5 ton fresh 5.0 20 3 6.8 5.6
Beet, table 7 5–20 ton fresh 1.3 8.0 5 6.0 5.6
Blueberry,
establishment b 61 all fresh — — 3 5.6 5.4
Brassica, forage 8 2–3 ton DM 10 48 3 6.0 5.6
Broccoli 9 4–6 ton fresh 2.0 8.0 5 6.0 5.6
Brussels sprouts 10 4–6 ton fresh 3.2 9.4 5 6.0 5.6
Buckwheat 11 1200–2000 lb ~15 0.013 0.013 2 5.6 5.4
Cabbage 12 8–30 ton fresh 1.6 7.2 5 6.0 5.6
Canola 13 30–50 bu 8 1.1 2.0 1 5.8 5.6
Carrot 14 20–30 ton fresh 1.8 9.6 5 5.8 5.6
Cauliflower 15 6–8 ton fresh 2.9 7.1 5 6.0 5.6
Celery 16 25–35 ton fresh 3.3 10 5 6.0 5.6
Cherry b 62 all fresh — — 3 6.5 —
Clover, red 42 1.5–6.5 ton DM 13 60 4 6.3 5.6
Corn, grain 17 70–220 bu 15.5 0.38 0.29 1 6.0 5.6
Corn, popcorn 38 60–80 bu ~14 0.36 0.29 3 6.0 5.6
Corn, silage 18 10–35 ton 65 3.6 8.3 3 6.0 5.6
Corn, stover d — 3–10 ton DM 4.6 32 — — —
Corn, sweet 19 2–10 ton fresh 3.3 6.0 3 6.0 5.6
Cranberry,
CRP, alfalfa 66 — — 0 0 3 6.6 —
CRP, grass 68 — — 0 0 2 5.6 5.4
CRP, red clover 67 — — 0 0 4 6.3 5.6
Cucumber 20 5–10 ton fresh 1.2 3.6 5 5.8 5.6
Flax 21 20–40 bu 9 0.67 0.67 2 6.0 5.6
Ginseng 22 1000–3000 lb DM 0.0075 0.030 5 — —
Grape,
Lettuce 23 15–20 ton fresh 2.3 9.1 5 5.8 5.6
Lupine 24 40–60 bu ~16 1.0 1.2 4 6.3 5.6
(continued)
23
removals and demand levels, and target soil pH values for each crop (continued).

Crop name Crop code (per acre) contenta (%) (lb/unit yield) level Mineral Organic
Melon 25 8–10 ton fresh 4.4 16 5 5.8 5.6
Millet 26 40–60 bu 10 0.40 0.40 2 5.6 5.4
Mint, oil 27 35–55 lb — 1.1 4.4 5 — 5.6
Oats, grain 75 30–120 bu 14 0.29 0.19 4 5.8 5.6
Oats, grain + straw c 28 30–120 bu — — — 4 5.8 5.6
Oats, straw d — 1–3 ton DM 9.4 47 — — —
Onion 31 400–600 cwt fresh 0.12 0.26 5 5.6 5.4
Pasture, legume-grass 34 2–5 ton DM 13 51 4 6.0 —
Pasture, managed e 33 2–5 ton DM 15 55 1 6.0 5.6
Pasture, unimproved 32 1–4 ton DM 16 36 2 6.0 5.6
Pea, canning 35 1000–6000 lb fresh 0.0046 0.0092 3 6.0 5.6
Pea, chick/field/cow 36 1–2 ton 10 20 24 3 6.0 5.6
Pepper 37 8–10 ton fresh 1.1 5.6 5 6.0 5.6
Potato f 39 250–650 cwt fresh 0.12 0.50 6 5.2/6.0 5.2/5.6
Pumpkin 40 15–20 ton fresh 2.9 6.3 5 6.0 5.6
Raspberry,
Reed canarygrass 41 4–7 ton DM 7.3 33 2 6.0 5.6
Rye, grain 76 15–70 bu 14 0.41 0.31 4 5.6 5.4
Rye, grain + straw c 43 15–70 bu — — — 4 5.6 5.4
Rye, straw d — 1–2 ton DM 3.7 21 — — —
Small grain silage g 81 2.0–3.5 ton DM 11 44 4 6.0 —
Small grain
silage, under-
seeded with alfalfa g 29 2.0–3.5 ton DM 11 44 4 6.8 —
Small grain
& legume silage g,h 82 2.0–3.5 ton DM 11 44 4 6.0 —
Small grain &
legume silage,
underseeded
with alfalfa g,h 30 2.0–3.5 ton DM 11 44 4 6.8 —
Sod, establishment 45 all — — — 2 6.0 5.6
Sorghum, grain 46 50–100 bu 14 0.40 0.40 2 5.6 5.4
Sorghum-
sudan, forage 47 5–7 ton 65 15 60 2 5.6 5.4
Soybean, grain 48 15–85 bu 13 0.80 1.4 2 6.3 5.6
Soybean,
grain + straw c 77 15–85 bu — — — 2 6.3 5.6
Soybean, straw d — 2–4 ton DM 5.4 19 — — —
Spinach 49 4–6 ton fresh 4.0 10 5 6.0 5.6
Squash 50 12–16 ton fresh 2.8 6.4 5 6.0 5.6
Strawberry,
Sunflower 51 500–4000 lb 10 0.012 0.024 1 6.0 5.6
Tobacco 52 1600–2800 lb cured leaf 0.0091 0.057 5 5.8 5.6
Tomato 53 20–25 ton fresh 1.8 8.0 5 6.0 5.6
(continued)
24
removals and demand levels, and target soil pH values for each crop (continued).

Crop name Crop code (per acre) contenta (%) (lb/unit yield) level Mineral Organic
Trefoil, birdsfoot 54 1.5–5.5 ton DM 13 60 4 6.0 5.6
Triticale, grain 55 1000–5000 lb ~13 0.011 0.0092 4 6.0 5.6
Triticale, grain + straw c 80 1000–5000 lb — — — 4 6.0 5.6
Triticale, straw d — 1–2 ton DM 3.7 21 — — —
Truck crops 56 all fresh — — 5 6.0 5.6
Vetch, crown/hairy 57 2–3 ton DM 16 48 4 6.0 5.6
Wheat, grain 78 20–100 bu 13.5 0.50 0.35 3 6.0 5.6
Wheat, grain + straw c 58 20–100 bu — — — 3 6.0 5.6
Wheat, straw d — 1.5–3.5 ton DM 6.0 28 — — —
Wildlife food plot,
corn/forage brassicas 69 — — — — 2 6.0 —
Wildlife food plot,
legumegrass pasture 70 — — — — 4 6.0 —
Wildlife food plot,
oats/wheat/rye 71 — — — — 4 6.0 —
Wildlife food plot,
soybean 72 — — — — 2 6.0 —
Wildlife food plot,
sugar beet/turnip 73 — — — — 4 6.3 —
a Reporting moisture content is the moisture content at which yield is reported. DM = yield is reported on a dry matter basis; fresh = yield is reported
on a fresh, as harvested basis; cured leaf = yield is sold/reported on a cured leaf basis.
b Lime recommendations for apples and cherries apply only to pre-plant tests. Adjustment of pH is impractical once an orchard is established. Other
perennial fruit crops must also be limed or amended with an acidifying material and incorporated prior to establishment.
c Use when both grain and straw are removed.
d Straw and stover do not have a crop code because no nutrient application guidelines are provided. Yield ranges and crop removals for straw and
stover are given for information only. Crop removals for straw are used in calculating the phosphate and potash fertilizer recommendations for small
grains, grain + stover, see Table 7.4.
e Includes bromegrass, fescue, orchardgrass, ryegrass, and timothy.
f Use higher target pH for scab-resistant varieties and lower target pH for varieties that are not scab resistant.
g Small grains include barley, oats, rye, triticale, and wheat.
h Legumes may include leguminous vegetables (pea, bean) and soybean, but not forage legumes (alfalfa, red clover).
Table 4.4. Accepted corn and alfalfa yield levels

for each yield potential category a
Yield Relative
potential yield Accepted yield goals
code b potential Corn (bu/a) Alfalfa (ton/a)
1 Very high 131–220 3.5–8.5
2 High 101–180 3.0–7.0
3 Medium 81–160 2.5–5.5
4 Low 61–140 1.0–4.0
a These are the levels allowed by the laboratory computer
program that generates nutrient rate guidelines.
b Refer to Table 4.1 for yield potential codes for specific soils
or to Table 4.2 for yield potential codes by county.
25
5
Chapter — Soil pH and lime requirement
T
he optimum pH for a soil depends on the
crops that will be grown. Table 4.3 lists the
optimum (target) pH levels for crops grown in
Wisconsin. The amount of lime recommended is
the amount needed to reach the target pH for the
most acid-sensitive crop (the one with the highest
target pH) that is to be grown during the next 4
Lime requirement for 60-69 lime should be
rounded to the nearest ton, while lime require-
ment for liming materials with a greater NI are
rounded to the nearest 0.5 ton/a. The lime require-
ment for potato should be rounded to the nearest
0.1 ton/a because they are typically grown on
poorly buffered soils and it is not desirable to over-
lime potato fields.
years. If alfalfa will be grown on a field in the
future, but is not indicated in the present rotation,
the field lime needs may be underestimated. Plow depth adjustment
Once a soil reaches the desired pH level, it will Adjusting the lime requirement for the depth of
tend to remain at that level for a relatively long tillage is critical for reaching the desired soil pH. In
time without additional application of lime. This is the past, most tillage operations were limited to
because soils are naturally highly buffered against the top 7 inches of the soil, so the lime needs are
changes in pH. Coarse-textured soils (sands and based on that assumption. If tillage extends below
loamy sands) are not as highly buffered against pH 7 inches the lime requirement is greater, as more
change as medium- and fine-textured soils, so they soil is being mixed with the applied lime. To adjust
will generally not maintain their pH level as long. the lime recommendation for deeper tillage,
Sandy soils may need to be limed more frequently, multiply the lime requirement by the factor listed
but at much lower rates. in Table 5.2.
An application rate of 1 ton/a of topdressed 60-69
Lime requirement calculations lime is recommended for fields that have been
Lime should be applied if the soil pH is more than under no-till management for more than 5 years
0.2 units below the target pH. Minor fluctuations and which have a surface (0–2 inches) pH that is
inherent in both sampling and pH measurement more than 0.2 units below the target pH. These
preclude calculating lime needs when the pH is fields should be retested in 3–4 years to determine
within 0.2 units of the target. The lime requirement if additional lime applications are needed.
equations listed in Table 5.1 use soil pH and buffer
pH values in calculating lime requirement for a
sample. Table 5.1. Formulas used to calculate lime require-
ment at various target pH levels.
The recommendations obtained using equations
in Table 5.1 are for liming materials with a neutral- Lime requirement formula a
izing index (NI) of 60-69. Because 80-89 NI lime is Target pH (tons/a 60–69 lime to apply b)
commonly used in much of the state, the neces- 5.2 36.1 – 3.29*BpH – 2.67*WpH
sary rate of 80-89 lime is normally listed on a soil 5.4 48.2 – 4.84*BpH – 3.03*WpH
test report along with the 60-69 rate. If using lime 5.6 51.0 – 5.40*BpH – 2.67*WpH
with an NI other than 60-69, adjust the lime 5.8 57.2 – 5.55*BpH – 3.50*WpH
requirement using the following formula:
6.0 72.7 – 7.59*BpH – 3.78*WpH
Lime requirement (ton/a) of lime being used = 6.3 103 – 12.6*BpH – 3.18*WpH
(ton/a of 60-69 lime recommended) 6.5 134 – 17.2*BpH – 2.73*WpH
x (65 ÷ NI* of lime being used)
6.6 152 – 20.3*BpH – 2.17*WpH
*When a range is given, use the midpoint (e.g., 6.8 195 – 28.4*BpH + 0.144*WpH
for 80-89 grade lime, use 85 in the calculation). a Abbreviations: BpH = buffer pH, WpH = water pH
b An adjustment to compensate for inefficient field mixing

and incomplete dissolution of ground limestone is already
factored into the equation.
CHAPTER
5
Table 5.2. Plow depth adjustment. Use the lime
Soil pH and lime requirement

adjustment multiplier to calculate the new lime
Other factors affecting lime
requirement for a given plow depth. recommendations
Coarse-textured soils are not as well buffered
Plow depth (inches) Lime adjustment multiplier
against change in soil pH as are medium- and fine-
0–7.0 1.00 textured soils. To help prevent over-liming on
7.1–8.0 1.15 sandy soils with an average organic matter content
8.1–9.0 1.31 of less than 1%, only 1 ton/a of lime should be
> 9.0 1.46 applied when the calculated lime requirement is
less than 1.5 tons/a. For silt loam and clay soils, the
minimum application should be 2 tons/a of 60-69
NI lime or 1.5 tons/a of 80-89 grade lime. The rate
Averaging the lime requirement of lime applied should never exceed 8 tons/a for
On fields where multiple samples have been taken, potatoes or 12 tons/a for other crops even though
a field average is normally used to determine the more lime may be required to completely neutral-
best overall rate. For samples where the lime ize soil acidity. Where the lime need is greater than
requirement exceeds the field average by more these levels, the field may not reach the desired
than 2 tons/a, apply a higher rate of lime to the target pH, but the smaller application is recom-
more acid part of the field. If a sample from the mended for economic reasons.
field indicates that the lime requirement is more If the field has been limed in the last 2 years, addi-
than 2 tons/a below the mean, that sample should tional lime may not be needed, even though the
be excluded and an adjusted mean calculated target pH has not been reached. No additional
using the remaining values. If only three or four lime should be applied until the most recent appli-
samples were submitted from a field, no more than cation has had 2–3 years to equilibrate with the
one sample will be eliminated from consideration. soil and the pH retested.
If five or more samples are taken to represent the
field, no more than two samples will be excluded.
This adjusted average is the value that is used to
Lowering soil pH
Most horticulture and agronomic crops grow best
determine the lime needs for fields that are to be
when soil pH is between 6.0 and 6.8. Many crops
amended by applying a single uniform rate. If
can adapt to higher or lower pH levels with no
more than half of the samples on a field do not
drop in crop quality or yield. However, some crops,
have a lime requirement, then the field lime
like blueberries, require acid soil conditions (soil
requirement should be considered to be
pH of 5.5 or less) to grow and perform as expected.
zero. However, growers should be aware that some
parts of this field may benefit from liming and Many soils, especially those in southeastern
should consult the laboratory results section of the Wisconsin, are alkaline (high pH), and may contain
soil test report. If one-half or less of the samples in free carbonate, which is a source for alkalinity. Such
a field do not have a lime requirement, the field soils require high levels of management to suc-
lime requirement should be based on the average cessfully grow crops that require acid soil condi-
of the samples with a lime requirement. Again, the tions. If the soil pH is 7.5 or greater, growing crops
laboratory results section of the soil test report that require low soil pH conditions is not recom-
should be consulted to determine which parts of mended.
the field may not benefit from liming.
In the rest of Wisconsin, most soils with a pH of less Aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3) can also be used to
than 7.5 can be amended to lower the pH to the lower soil pH. Its effect is nearly immediate, but the
desired level (Table 5.3). The most common materi- cost to lower soil pH is higher than using elemen-
als used are elemental sulfur and aluminum tal sulfur. The amount of aluminum sulfate needed
sulfate. To lower the soil pH, elemental sulfur must to achieve the same decrease in pH is 6 times the
be converted (oxidized) to sulfate by soil bacteria. amount of elemental sulfur required. Because too
As a result, the change in pH takes several months much aluminum can be toxic to plants, aluminum
or longer. Sometimes the soil contains very small sulfate should not be applied at rates exceeding
numbers of this special kind of bacteria. Under 50 lb Al2(SO4)3/1,000 sq. ft. at any one application.
these conditions, the process may take 6 or more Keep in mind that fertilizer products containing
months. The oxidizing reaction brought about by sulfate-sulfur are not effective in lowering soil pH.
the organisms is as follows: This includes products such as potassium sulfate
S + 3⁄2 O2 + H2O —> 2 H+ + SO42- (K2SO4) and gypsum (CaSO4).
It is not recommended to apply more than 20 lb

S/1,000 sq. ft. per year. If more is required, use split
applications of 20 lb S/1,000 sq. ft. and apply in
succeeding years. Check the soil pH before making
a second application to see how much change has
taken place.
Table 5.3. Amount of finely ground elemental sulfur needed to lower soil
pH (increase acidity).
Desired
reduction in Soil organic matter content (%)
soil pH 0.5–2 2–4 4–6 6–8 8–10 >10
——————— lb S/1,000 sq. ft. ———————
0.25 6 18 28* 40* 53* 62*
0.50 12 35* 56* 80* 106* 125*
1.00 24* 70* 112* 120* 212* 250*
* Do not apply more than 20 lb S/1,000 sq. ft. per year; retest soil between applications.
Nitrogen application rate guidelines
M
ost non-legume crops need additional
nitrogen (N) to improve crop yield and
quality and to optimize economic return to
the grower. However, excess nitrogen can reduce
yields and lower the quality of some crops. Excess
nitrogen can also cut economic returns to produc-
Nitrogen — Chapter
the results from hundreds of corn nitrogen
response experiments conducted throughout the
region. The new nitrogen rate guideline strategy,
based on the data, is designed to maximize
economic return to the grower. Because the philos-
ophy of this approach is based on maximizing
economic return to nitrogen (MRTN), that acronym
is widely used to refer to these guidelines.
6
ers, degrade water quality, and cause other unde-
sirable environmental effects. Wisconsin’s nitrogen Although the MRTN approach emerged from a
rate guidelines are based on crop yield, quality, and regional effort, the Wisconsin MRTN rate guidelines
economic return. Using these guidelines will help in this publication are based entirely on experi-
to minimize excess nitrogen applications and ments conducted on numerous Wisconsin soils.
reduce environmental risks. These guidelines are The MRTN guidelines for corn (Table 6.1) are based
based on field studies where crop responses to on soil characteristics, previous crop, and the
several rates of nitrogen are measured on soils typ- nitrogen:corn price ratio that is applicable to the
ically used for production of various crops. specific production situation. Similar to the
Nitrogen application rate guidelines vary accord- previous Wisconsin nitrogen rate recommenda-
ing to the crop to be grown, soil characteristics tions, the MRTN rate guidelines are soil-specific. As
and yield potential, and soil organic matter shown in Table 6.1, medium- and fine-textured
content. soils are separated into two soil yield potential cat-
egories: very high and high, and medium and low.
Corn nitrogen rate guidelines This separation is needed because corn grown on
As noted above, the optimum nitrogen rate for soils in these two categories shows a different
corn grain and silage was developed through response to nitrogen fertilization. Sandy soils
experiments that measured corn yield response to (sands and loamy sands) are given separate
several rates of nitrogen on soils typically used for nitrogen rate guideline values depending on
corn production. These studies found that the whether or not they are irrigated. The lower
economic optimum nitrogen rate for corn grown nitrogen rates for non-irrigated sandy soils reflect
on a given soil tends to be similar in high- and the lower yield potential where moisture is often
low-yielding years. Apparent recovery of fertilizer inadequate. All irrigated non-sandy soils are
nitrogen by corn is high under favorable growing presumed to be very high yield potential soils, and
conditions and low when growing conditions are therefore receive the nitrogen rates suggested in
poor or include stress such as drought. The charac- Table 6.1 for medium- and fine-textured very high
teristic for optimum nitrogen rates to remain fairly and high yield potential soils.
constant across a wide yield range on similar soils
has recently been called nitrogen resiliency.
Soil fertility specialists in several midwestern
states, including Wisconsin, recently agreed upon a
uniform approach to developing nitrogen rate
guidelines for corn. The group recognized that
yield objectives or yield goals are not good predic-
tors of the economic optimum nitrogen rate.
Instead, they focused on the relationship between
corn and nitrogen prices. The specialists examined
The soil name is the key to placing soils in the Previously, nitrogen application rates for corn fol-
appropriate yield potential category, and the corn lowing soybean involved subtracting a soybean
yield potential category for each soil is given in nitrogen credit. Now the nitrogen needs are deter-
Table 4.1. Thus, providing the predominant soil mined directly from the nitrogen response infor-
name for a field on the soil information sheet is mation for this cropping system. Although
critical for obtaining an accurate nitrogen applica- nitrogen response data for corn following small
tion rate value. When the soil name is not grains is somewhat limited, these results show that
provided, the nitrogen application rate is esti- corn nitrogen needs in this cropping system are
mated based on the texture code (sands versus similar to those found where corn follows soybean.
other soils), county of origin (Table 4.2), and the Suggested nitrogen rates for sands and loamy
soil organic matter level. sands are appropriate for all previous crops, but
nitrogen credits for previous forage legumes and
Selecting soil yield potential and manure applications must be subtracted from
previous crop options these values.
For medium- and fine-textured soils, the suggested Where nitrogen rates are adjusted for nitrogen
application rate varies according to the previous contributions from organic sources, such as
crop (Table 6.1). Where corn follows a forage manure, or other land-applied waste materials, it is
legume, a leguminous vegetable, or a green important to recognize that this adjustment
manure crop or where manure has been applied, should be made on the basis of first-year available
the appropriate nitrogen credits must be sub- nitrogen content of the material and not its total
tracted from the nitrogen rate values shown in nitrogen content. See Chapter 9 Nutrient Credits
Table 6.1. (See Tables 9.1–9.6 for information on for details.
crediting nitrogen from legumes and manure).
Table 6.1. Suggested nitrogen application rates for corn (grain) at different nitrogen:corn price ratios.
Nitrogen:corn price ratio

Soil Previous crop 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
———————— lb N/a (total to apply)a ————————
High/very high Corn, forage legumes, 165 b 135 120 105
yield potential soils legume vegetables, 135—*—190 c 120—*—155 100—*—135 90—*—120
green manures d
Soybean, 140 115 100 90
small grains e 110—*—160 100—*—130 85—*—115 70—*—100
Medium/low yield Corn, forage legumes, 120 105 95 90
potential soils legume vegetables, 100—*—140 90—*—120 85—*—110 80—*—100
green manures d
Soybean, 90 60 50 45
small grains e 75—*—110 45—*—70 40—*—60 35—*—55
Sands/loamy sands Irrigated— 215 205 195 190
all crops d 200—*—230 190—*—220 180—*—210 175—*—200
Non-irrigated— 120 105 95 90
all crops d 100—*—140 90—*—120 85—*—110 80—*—100
a Includes N in starter.
b Rate is the nitrogen rate that provides the maximum return to nitrogen (MRTN).
c Range is the range of profitable nitrogen rates that provide an economic return to nitrogen within $1/a of the MRTN.
d Subtract N credits for forage legumes, legume vegetables, animal manures, green manures. This includes first, second, and
third year credits where applicable. Do not subtract nitrogen credits for leguminous vegetables on sand and loamy sand
soils.
e Subtract N credits for animal manures and second-year forage legumes.
CHAPTER
6
Calculating nitrogen:corn price ratios available to spread all manure, then the value of
Nitrogen
MRTN nitrogen rate guidelines are based on the the nitrogen in manure could be considered to be
nitrogen:corn price ratio that is applicable to the equivalent to fertilizer nitrogen. This would mean
specific production situation. This allows the user that it would be more useful to spread the manure
flexibility in identifying the nitrogen rate likely to on as many acres as possible and reduce pur-
maximize economic return at prevailing nitrogen chased nitrogen fertilizer. If the land base is
and corn prices. To determine the nitrogen:corn limited, then spreading manure at a rate not to
price ratio, divide the cost of nitrogen ($/lb) by the exceed the amount needed to maximize yield (top
price of corn ($/bu). For example, if the cost of end of the profitability range for a nitrogen:corn
nitrogen is $0.30/lb and the price of corn is price ratio of 0.05) would be appropriate. On some
$2.50/bu, the nitrogen:corn price ratio is $0.30 ÷ farms, there may be some fields that cannot
$2.50 = 0.12. If the per ton price for fertilizer receive manure and others that can. Thus, nitrogen
nitrogen is known, the nitrogen cost can be calcu- application rates may be higher for fields receiving
lated as follows: Price of nitrogen ($/lb) = [$/ton of manure and lower for fields receiving fertilizer
fertilizer N x (100 ÷ % N in fertilizer)] ÷ 2000. Table nitrogen.
6.1 shows the nitrogen rates likely to maximize
economic return for four price ratios. Also shown is Selecting nitrogen
a range of nitrogen rates that would be within rates for corn silage
$1.00 per acre of maximizing economic return. The relationship between silage yield and nitrogen
With this approach, growers can select rates higher application rate is similar to that for grain yield and
or lower than the MRTN rate depending on their nitrogen rate. Silage quality is not greatly influ-
experience with using various nitrogen rates and enced by nitrogen application rates over the range
their risk tolerance. In general, corn yields will be at of nitrogen rates provided in the rate guidelines
or near maximum levels if the nitrogen rates indi- table. If growing silage for on-farm feed, usually
cated for the 0.05 price ratio are used. At rates growers want to maximize yield to minimize pur-
shown for the higher ratios, yields will likely be chased feed costs. In this situation using a nitrogen
somewhat lower, but economic return to the rate in the mid- to upper end of the 0.05 price ratio
grower will be maximized. For all soil types, the would be appropriate. If silage is being sold, and a
nitrogen rate at the MRTN for the 0.20 producer would like to reduce nitrogen rates to
nitrogen:corn price ratio produces, on average, improve profitability, then they should choose a
94–95% of maximum yield. nitrogen rate using a nitrogen:corn price ratio that
reflects typical prices for nitrogen and grain.
Valuing corn grain
and manure nitrogen Deciding which end
While the value of purchased fertilizer nitrogen is of the MRTN range to use
relatively easy to determine, estimating a realistic Additional suggestions for selecting optimum
value for corn grain and manure nitrogen requires nitrogen rates from Table 6.1 are listed below:
some calculations based on anticipated end use. ■ If residue covers more than 50% of the soil at
The value of grain will vary depending on where planting, use the upper end of the range.
the grain is sold and how it is marketed. For
■ If 100% of the nitrogen will come from organic
example, grain that will be used on the farm as
sources, use the top end of the range. In this
livestock feed should be valued at the price it
situation, up to 20 lb/a nitrogen in starter fertil-
would cost to purchase grain if feedstocks run
izer may also be applied.
short.
■ For medium- and fine-textured soils with more
The value of nitrogen in manure may vary
than 10% organic matter, use the low end of
between farms and between fields on farms
the range.
depending upon the availability of land on which
to spread manure. If a large enough land base is ■ For medium- and fine-textured soils with less
than 2% organic matter, use the high end of potatoes. Nitrogen can be applied up to 60 days
the range. after emergence. Later applications do not
■ For coarse-textured soils with less than 2% improve yield or quality.
organic matter, use the high end of the range. When potatoes follow a legume crop, reduce
■ For coarse-textured soils with more than 2% nitrogen applications according to the legume
organic matter, use the middle to low end of nitrogen credits shown in Tables 9.4–9.6. Take
the range. appropriate credits if manure has been applied
(Tables 9.1–9.3). Broadcasting or applying nitrogen
■ For corn following small grains on medium-
with the irrigation water, especially early in the
and fine-textured soils, the middle to low end
season, results in less efficient nitrogen use
of the range is most appropriate.
because as water moves downward in the furrows,
■ If there is a likelihood of residual nitrogen the nitrogen bypasses the plant roots.
(carry-over nitrogen), use the low end of the
Petiole nitrate (NO3-N) testing can help determine
range or use the high end of the range and
the need for late nitrogen application. Table 6.3
subtract preplant nitrate test (PPNT) credits.
indicates optimum petiole NO3-N levels for several
potato varieties and stages of growth. If petiole
Nitrogen rate guidelines for NO3-N levels are below optimum and the crop has
other crops at least 45 days to vine kill, apply 30–50 lb N /a.
Nitrogen rate guidelines for crops other than This additional nitrogen may be applied through
potatoes are also based on the concept that fertigation. If petiole NO3-N testing will be used to
desired yield or yield goal is not a good predictor monitor crop nitrogen status, early season
of optimum nitrogen rates in the production of nitrogen rates applied at hilling can be reduced by
these crops. However insufficient nitrogen 25–30%.
response data from research studies on a range of
Wisconsin soils is available to allow application of Using soil nitrate tests to adjust
the MRTN approach to nitrogen rate guidelines for
these crops. Therefore, a single nitrogen rate sug-
nitrogen application rates
Nitrogen application rates suggested for corn,
gestion is given regardless of yield level for these
sweet corn, and winter wheat grown on medium-
crops in Table 6.2. The suggested nitrogen rates are
and fine-textured soils can be adjusted using soil
adjusted for soil organic matter content.
nitrate tests. (Soil nitrate testing is not reliable on
coarse-textured sandy soils because their nitrate
Considerations for potato
content can change rapidly.) Soil nitrate testing
The potato nitrogen recommendations (Table 6.2)
allows nitrogen fertilizer recommendations to be
use yield as a criteria primarily to help separate
adjusted for field-specific conditions that can influ-
early, short-season varieties from longer, full-
ence crop nitrogen need. These adjustments can
season varieties. On medium- to fine-textured soils,
lower costs by avoiding nitrogen applications in
apply the entire amount at planting; there is no
excess of crop needs. They also help the environ-
advantage to splitting applications. On sandy soils,
ment by lowering the potential for nitrate
however, either apply 25–50% of the crop nitrogen
movement to groundwater by avoiding over-appli-
need at emergence and the remainder at tuberiza-
cation of nitrogen.
tion or apply the remaining nitrogen in multiple
split applications. During years with high precipita- Soil nitrate tests estimate the amount of plant-
tion, multiple split applications improve yield and available nitrate-nitrogen in the root zone. This
quality; during years with normal to low precipita- nitrogen may have carried-over from fertilizer
tion, splitting nitrogen applications at emergence applications during the previous growing season
and tuberization consistently produces high- or the nitrogen may have been supplied by pre-
yielding, high-quality potatoes. Excessive nitrogen ceding legume crops, manure applications, or min-
splitting may increase the percentage of cull eralization of soil organic matter. If the amount of
soil nitrate-nitrogen is significant, subsequent
CHAPTER
6
nitrogen fertilizer applications can be reduced or, Using the preplant soil nitrate test
Nitrogen
in some cases, eliminated. (PPNT)
In Wisconsin, two tests are available: a preplant soil For corn and sweet corn, soil samples for the PPNT
nitrate test (PPNT) that is appropriate for corn, should be collected in early spring after frost has
sweet corn, and winter wheat and a presidedress left the soil and prior to planting or any preplant
soil nitrate test (PSNT) that can be used for corn applications of nitrogen. For winter wheat, samples
and sweet corn. The PPNT involves deep soil should be taken in late summer. Soil samples need
sampling, to a depth of 2 feet, before planting the to be collected in 1-foot increments to a depth of 2
crop. This test measures the amount of residual or feet. The program predicts the soil nitrate content
carryover nitrate in the soil. The second test, the in the 2- to 3-foot depth based on the nitrate
PSNT, consists of shallower soil sampling, to a content in the 1- to 2-foot depth, eliminating the
depth of 1 foot, when corn is 6 to 12 inches tall. need for deeper sampling (Ehrhardt and Bundy,
This test is intended to predict the amount of 1995; Bundy and Andraski, 2001; Bundy and
plant-available nitrogen that will be released from Andraski, 2004). For best results, take a minimum of
organic sources during the growing season. 15 soil cores randomly from 20 acres. Be sure to
Choosing which of the soil nitrate tests to use take separate samples from field areas that differ
depends on a grower’s cropping system and field in soil characteristics or past management prac-
management. Generally, the PPNT works best tices. After collection, soil samples should be kept
under the following field conditions: cool because the nitrate content in moist soil
samples stored under warm conditions can
■ Medium- and fine-textured soils. increase quickly and cause erroneous test results. If
■ Previous growing season and over-winter samples cannot be delivered to the soil testing
precipitation normal or below normal. laboratory within 1 to 2 days after collection, the
■ Previous crop nitrogen application in excess samples should be frozen or air-dried to prevent
of crop need. changes in soil nitrate content.
Using the PPNT is not recommended in the follow- Nitrogen credits for recent manure applications
ing situations: (Tables 9.1–9.3) must be taken separately and in
addition to any credits based on PPNT results.
■ On medium- and fine-textured soils when
Another option for assessing these credits would
the previous season and overwinter precipi-
be the use of the presidedress nitrate test (PSNT).
tation was above normal.
See the following section for further information
■ On sandy soils. on using the PSNT.
■ When the previous crop was nitrogen defi- Nitrogen credits based on the PPNT can be calcu-
cient. lated using the information given in Table 6.4.
■ On first-year crops following alfalfa or other These nitrogen credits should be subtracted from
forage legume. (Refer to Table 9.4 for the nitrogen application rates for corn, sweet corn,
nitrogen credits for previous forage legume and wheat (Tables 6.1 and 6.2) to arrive at an
crops.) adjusted nitrogen application rate. The nitrogen
Some nitrate carry-over occurs in most years on credit is adjusted for background soil nitrate
well-drained medium-textured soils in Wisconsin. content by subtracting 50 lb N/a from the nitrate
The PPNT should be used when a grower suspects test result. More information on the PPNT is avail-
nitrate carry-over while the PSNT is most useful for able in Extension publication Wisconsin’s Preplant
confirming legume and manure nitrogen credits Soil Nitrate Test (A3512).
and providing a site-specific estimate of soil
nitrogen availability. More information on using
the PPNT and PSNT in various production situa-
tions is provided below.
Table 6.2. Nitrogen rate guidelines for crops other than corn.
Yield range Soil organic matter content (%)

Crop per acre < 2.0 2.0–9.9 10.0–20.0 > 20.0
———————lb N/a to apply a———————
Alfalfa, established 2.6–8.5 ton 0 0 0 0
Alfalfa, seeding 1.0–2.5 ton 30 0 0 0
Apple, establishment b — 2 2 2 2
Asparagus 2000–4000 lb 80 60 40 20
Barley c 25–100 bu 70 50 30 15
Bean, dry (kidney, navy) 10–40 cwt 40 30 20 10
Bean, lima 2000–5000 lb 60 40 20 10
Beet, table 5–20 ton 120 100 80 30
Blueberry, establishment d — 30 30 30 30
Brassica, forage 2–3 ton 120 100 80 40
Broccoli 4–6 ton 100 80 60 25
Brussels sprouts 4–6 ton 100 80 60 25
Buckwheat 1200–2000 lb 50 30 20 0
Cabbage 8–30 ton 180 140 100 40
Canola 30–50 bu 80 60 40 20
Carrot 20–30 ton 120 100 80 40
Cauliflower 6–8 ton 120 100 80 40
Celery 25–35 ton 140 120 100 50
Cherry, establishment b — 2 2 2 2
Clover, red, established 2.0–6.5 ton 0 0 0 0
Clover, red, seeding 0.5-1.9 ton 30 0 0 0
Corn, popcorn 60–80 bu 110 90 70 50
Corn, sweet 2–10 ton 150 130 110 70
Cranberry, establishment d — 150 150 150 150
CRP, alfalfa e — 20 0 0 0
CRP, grass e — 30 15 0 0
CRP, red clover e — 20 0 0 0
Cucumber 5–10 ton 100 80 60 30
Flax 20–40 bu 50 30 20 0
Ginseng 1000–3000 lb 60 40 20 0
Grapes, establishment b — 2 2 2 2
Lettuce 15–20 ton 120 100 80 40
Lupine 40–60 bu 10 0 0 0
Melon 8–10 ton 100 80 60 30
Millet 40–60 bu 80 60 40 20
Mint, oil 35–55 lb 120 100 80 50
Oats c 30–120 bu 60 40 20 0
Onion 400–600 cwt 150 140 130 120
Pasture, legume-grass, established 2–5 ton 0 0 0 0
Pasture, legume-grass, seeding 0.5-1.9 ton 40 20 0 0
Pasture, managed f, g 2–5 ton 160 130 100 50
Pasture, unimproved f 1–4 ton 120 100 70 30
Pea, canning 1000–6000 lb 40 30 20 0
CHAPTER
Table 6.2. Nitrogen rate guidelines for crops other than corn (continued).
Yield range Soil organic matter content (%)

6
Crop per acre < 2.0 2.0–9.9 10.0–20.0 > 20.0
Nitrogen
———————lb N/a to apply a———————
Pea, chick/field/cow 1–2 ton 40 30 20 0
Pepper 8–10 ton 100 80 60 30
Potato h 250–350 cwt 145 120 100 60
Potato h 351–450 cwt 180 155 130 75
Potato h 451–550 cwt 220 180 150 85
Potato h 551–650 cwt 250 210 175 95
Pumpkin 15–20 ton 100 80 60 30
Raspberry, establishment d — 30 30 30 30
Reed canarygrass 4–7 ton 270 250 220 100
Rye 15–70 bu 60 40 20 0
Small grain silage 2.0–3.5 ton 60 40 20 0
Small grain silage,
underseeded with alfalfa 2.0–3.5 ton 30 20 10 0
Small grain & legume silage 2.0–3.5 ton 25 15 0 0
Small grain & legume silage,
underseeded with alfalfa 2.0–3.5 ton 15 10 0 0
Snapbean 1.5–6.5 ton 60 40 20 0
Sod i all 250 250 250 250
Sorghum, grain 50–100 bu 130 100 80 40
Sorghum-sudan, forage 5–7 ton 120 100 80 40
Soybean 15–85 bu 0 0 0 0
Spinach 4–6 ton 100 80 60 30
Squash 12–16 ton 80 60 40 20
Strawberry, establishment d — 30 30 30 30
Sunflower 500–4000 lb 100 80 60 30
Tobacco 1600–2800 lb 140 120 100 0
Tomato 20–25 ton 140 120 100 50
Trefoil, birdsfoot, established 1.5–5.5 ton 0 0 0 0
Trefoil, birdsfoot, seeding 0.5–1.4 ton 30 0 0 0
Triticale 1000–5000 lb 60 40 20 0
Truck crops all 140 120 120 60
Vetch, crown/hairy, established 2–3 ton 0 0 0 0
Vetch, crown/hairy, seeding 0.5–1.9 ton 30 0 0 0
Wheat j 20–100 bu 90 70 40 0
a This is the total amount of nitrogen to apply including e Apply some nitrogen (15–30 lb N/a), seeding year only.
starter fertilizer. f Split nitrogen applications into two to three applications
b These rates are in oz/plant, not lb/a. Rates apply for the per year.
establishment year only. The rate is 1 oz/plant applied g Includes bromegrass, fescue, orchardgrass, ryegrass, and
twice during the establishment year. After establishment timothy.
use tissue testing to guide fertilizer application.
h Rates include nitrogen in starter fertilizer. Reduce nitrogen
c Where barley or oat are underseeded with a legume
rate by 25% if petiole nitrate test is used to guide in-
forage, eliminate or reduce nitrogen by half. season nitrogen applications.
d Rates apply for the establishment year only. After estab-
i Apply total amount of nitrogen in split applications and/or
lishment, use tissue testing to guide fertilizer application. use slow release fertilizers. These guidelines are for sod
For blueberry, raspberry, and strawberry, split that total farms only.
application rate into two or three applications in the
j Reduce nitrogen rate by 10 lb N/a for spring wheat.
establishment year. For cranberries, apply no more than
15 lb N/a at any one time during the establishment year.
Using the presidedress For corn and sweet corn, soil nitrate measured by
soil nitrate test (PSNT) the PSNT is credited against the nitrogen applica-
The presidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT) provides a tion rate (Table 6.1 or 6.2) using the values shown
diagnostic tool for adjusting corn nitrogen applica- in Table 6.5. For example, if the target application
tion rates. It measures the amount of plant-avail- rate for a corn field on high yield potential soils is
able nitrogen released from organic nitrogen 150 lb N/a and the PSNT value is 16 ppm N, a
sources such as previous forage legume crops, credit of 60 lb N/a would be subtracted from the
manure applications, and soil organic matter. The target application rate (150 – 60 = 90 lb N/a) to
PSNT can be a valuable technique for confirming arrive at the nitrogen rate to apply.
the amount of nitrogen that should be credited Because mineralization of nitrogen from organic
from manure or previous legume crops where sources is a biological process, the amounts
insufficient information is available to assign these measured by the PSNT are influenced by average
credits. temperatures during the period before sample col-
Samples for the PSNT should be taken when corn lection. When early growing season temperatures
plants are 6–12 inches tall, usually 4–6 weeks after are cool, mineralization occurs more slowly,
planting. Unlike preplant nitrate (PPNT) samples, causing the PSNT to underestimate the amount of
PSNT soil samples are collected only to a depth of organic nitrogen that will become available during
1 foot. As with PPNT, a minimum of 15 soil cores the growing season. When this occurs, nitrogen
should be randomly taken from every 20 acres. credits based on the PSNT will be low, resulting in
Samples should be refrigerated. (See previous application rates that are higher than necessary.
section on sampling for the preplant test). The Wisconsin research with the PSNT shows that
PSNT is not recommended on sandy soils (sands optimum nitrogen rates for corn are sometimes
and loamy sands). While soil sampling for the PSNT overestimated when average temperatures in
is easier than for the PPNT, growers using the PSNT May–June are more than 1°F below the long-term
are locked into sidedress applications if additional average (Andraski and Bundy, 2002). When average
nitrogen is needed. Users of this test should also temperatures in May and June are normal or
be aware that all operations including soil higher, the PSNT seldom overestimates crop
sampling, laboratory analysis, and sidedress nitrogen needs. Where the PSNT is used to adjust
nitrogen applications must be completed within nitrogen rates for nitrogen contributions from
1–2 weeks. organic nitrogen sources in growing seasons with
below normal average temperatures for May and
June, users should consider the book value
Table 6.3. Optimum petiole NO3-N levels for several potato varieties at different growth stages.
Dry weight basis Sap basis

Stage of Norkota Norkota
growth Norland Shepody Norland Shepody
(days after Atlantic R.Burbank Onaway Atlantic R.Burbank Onaway
emergence) Kennebec Snowden Superior Kennebec Snowden Superior
—————% NO3-N————— —————ppm NO3-N —————
30 2.5–2.8 2.0–2.3 2.3–2.5 1900–2100 1600–1800 1800–1900
40 2.3–2.5 1.7–2.2 2.0–2.3 1800–2000 1600–1700 1600–1800
50 1.8–2.3 1.2–1.6 1.5–1.9 1400–1800 1000–1300 1200–1500
60 1.3–1.9 0.8–1.1 0.9–1.2 1100–1500 700–900 500–1000
70 0.8–1.1 0.5–0.8 0.4–0.6 700–900 500–700 400–600
CHAPTER
6
nitrogen credit for the manure application or the Corn following corn. Where corn follows corn in a
Nitrogen
previous legume crop together with the PSNT crop rotation, residual soil nitrate accumulation is
nitrogen credit in arriving at a nitrogen application likely on medium- and fine-textured soils if
rate decision. If the PSNT value is > 21 ppm N, no previous precipitation was normal or below and/or
additional nitrogen is needed. If the PSNT nitrogen previous nitrogen applications exceeded crop
credit is substantially less than the book value uptake. In this cropping system, the PPNT is the
nitrogen credits, the book value credits are likely to preferred soil nitrate test because the deeper
be more reliable. Low PSNT nitrogen credits are sampling depth allows more complete assessment
most likely to occur with spring manure applica- of the amount of residual nitrate in the soil profile.
tions or following spring killed or spring tilled The PSNT can be used to provide a partial estimate
alfalfa. of nitrogen carryover and to estimate the amounts
of available nitrogen likely to be released for
Using soil nitrate tests in Wisconsin organic sources. In the corn following corn crop
cropping systems sequence, the PSNT can identify sites that do not
Selecting the soil nitrate test that is most appropri- need additional nitrogen fertilization based on the
ate for a particular production situation depends 21 ppm critical level.
on the cropping system, management practices, Manured sites. Both the PPNT and the PSNT can
and climatic conditions. The following suggestions be used on manured fields; however, there are dif-
are intended to provide guidance on the most ferences in the interpretation of the test results
useful test for various cropping systems common depending on which test is used. The PSNT
to Wisconsin.
Table 6.4. Nitrogen credits based on preplant nitrate test (PPNT) results.
Crop PPNT results Nitrogen credit (lb N/a to credit)

Corn, sweet corn 0–50 lb/a 0
50–200 lb/a PPNT – 50 lb N/a
(apply a minimum of 50 lb N/a)
>200 lb/a —*
Winter wheat <50 lb/a 0
>50 lb/a PPNT – 50 lb N/a
* No additional nitrogen is needed.
Table 6.5. Nitrogen credits for the presidedress soil

nitrate test (PSNT).
Soil yield potential

PSNT Very high/high Medium/low
value Nitrogen credit
ppm N ——————lb N/a——————
> 21 —* —*
18–20 100 80
15–17 60 80
13–14 35 40
11–12 10 40
< 10 0 0
* No additional nitrogen is needed
provides a direct estimate (nitrogen credit) of the Tables 9.1–9.3 and Table 9.4, respectively, must be
amount of available nitrogen likely to be released taken in addition to the adjustment for the PPNT.
during the growing season. The PPNT measures With the later sampling date of the PSNT, second
only nitrate nitrogen present when the sample is year nitrogen contributions due to mineralization
taken and thus will not reflect nitrogen release of organic sources have already been converted to
from the manure. When using the PPNT, a separate nitrate-nitrogen and will be measured by the test.
manure nitrogen credit (Tables 9.1–9.3) must be Therefore, nitrogen credits for the PSNT should not
taken in addition to the credit based on the test be adjusted further for second-year manure or
result. legume nitrogen credits.
Corn following alfalfa. When corn follows alfalfa
in a crop rotation, the previous alfalfa crop can Managing nitrogen to avoid losses
provide most, if not all, of the nitrogen required by The nitrogen application rate guidelines, nitrogen
the corn crop. The best method for determining credits, and soil nitrate test suggestions presented
corn nitrogen needs following alfalfa is to subtract in this publication assume that best management
the appropriate legume nitrogen credit (Table 9.4) practices will be used to control nitrogen losses. If
from the unadjusted nitrogen application rate. best management practices are not followed and
Corn following a good or fair stand of alfalfa on losses occur, the nitrogen rates suggested are
medium- and fine-textured soils usually does not likely to be inadequate to meet crop needs.
need additional nitrogen. Where there is a need to Nitrogen losses hurt both the bottom line and the
confirm the alfalfa nitrogen credit, the PSNT should environment. The major nitrogen management
be used. If the PSNT result is less than 21 ppm N, options to help avoid nitrogen losses are summa-
no more than 40 lb N/a should be applied. The rized below.
PPNT should not be used for corn following alfalfa.
Corn following soybean. Nitrogen rate guidelines
Nitrogen rate
Deciding how much nitrogen to apply is the most
for corn following soybean (Table 6.1) reflect the
important nitrogen management practice affect-
effect of the soybean-corn rotation on corn
ing profitability and nitrogen use efficiency.
nitrogen needs. The PPNT can be used to refine
Applying more nitrogen than the crop needs is the
these nitrogen rate suggestions for the effect of
primary source of nitrate losses to the environ-
residual soil nitrate. Where PPNT results are avail-
ment. Using the nitrogen rate guidelines in this
able, subtract the nitrate test nitrogen credit from
publication together with appropriate nitrogen
the appropriate nitrogen rate guideline value for
crediting for manure and previous legume crops
the soybean-corn crop sequence in Table 6.1. The
are essential for arriving at the best nitrogen rate
PSNT should not be used for adjusting nitrogen
decision. Application rates can be further refined
application rates in soybean-corn sequences.
for some crops through use of soil nitrate testing.
Confirming second-year manure and legume
Note also that as nitrogen rates increase, crop
credits. Manure and legume residues release
recovery of nitrogen decreases and the potential
nitrogen and other crop nutrients as they decom-
for nitrate loss to the environment increases.
pose. While the largest release of available
Therefore, the risk of nitrate loss to groundwater is
nitrogen occurs in the first year after manure or
reduced at lower nitrogen rates; however, yields
legume residues are added to the soil, this process
and economic returns are also likely to be less. See
is not complete after 1 year. Additional nitrogen is
Chapter 11 in Extension publication Management
released during the second growing season after
of Wisconsin Soils (A3588) for additional informa-
manure application or alfalfa plowdown. Where
tion on this subject. Nitrogen rates below those
corn follows corn, the PPNT is the preferred soil
specified for maximum economic return can be
nitrate test. However, this test will not measure any
selected to accomplish individual management or
nitrogen released by manure or legume residues
environmental objectives. Yields will vary depend-
during the second cropping year. Therefore,
ing on growing conditions and management.
second year manure or legume nitrogen credits in
CHAPTER
6
Nitrogen deficiencies become more likely as needed. In practice, though, other times of
Nitrogen
nitrogen rates are decreased from those shown in nitrogen application can be used with equal effec-
this publication. tiveness. Typically, nitrogen timing options for corn
include fall, preplant, and sidedress or split applica-
Nitrogen source tions. Fall applications are subject to higher risks of
All fertilizer nitrogen sources are effective in sup- nitrogen loss than other timing options, and
plying nitrogen to crops, but ammonia volatiliza- require specific management practices to obtain
tion or nitrate leaching can lower the effectiveness acceptable performance. In all cases, fall applica-
of some. Urea and urea-containing fertilizers such tions should be limited to well-drained, medium-
as urea-ammonium nitrate solutions (UAN) will and fine-textured soils. Fall applications should be
volatilize if surface-applied and conditions delayed until soil temperatures remain below 50°F,
favoring loss develop. Losses are usually 25–30% of and nitrogen should be applied as anhydrous
the applied nitrogen and can seriously reduce the ammonia containing a nitrification inhibitor. Even
fertilizer’s effectiveness. Control measures include when these practices are employed, fall applica-
injecting or incorporating the fertilizer materials, tions are usually 10–15% less effective than spring
including a urease inhibitor, or using a nitrogen applications of the same amount of nitrogen.
source that does not contain urea. Rainfall of at
Preplant nitrogen applications are as effective as
least 1⁄4 inch within a few days after application
other timing options on most medium- and fine-
will also minimize losses to volatilization.
textured soils with moderate or better drainage.
Fertilizers that contain nitrate such as urea- Sidedress nitrogen applications can be used effec-
ammonium nitrate solution, ammonium nitrate, tively on these soils; however, reduced optimum
calcium nitrate are susceptible to nitrogen losses nitrogen rates or yield enhancements should not
through leaching if substantial rainfall occurs soon be expected solely from the use of sidedress
after application. Under conditions where leaching nitrogen. In contrast, sidedress or split applications
is likely, using all-ammonium nitrogen sources, are essential for controlling nitrogen losses on
slow-release fertilizer materials, or delaying the coarse-textured sandy soils (leaching) and on
nitrogen application to match crop uptake can some poorly drained soils (denitrification).
help control these losses.
In some situations, use of a nitrification inhibitor
with preplant-applied ammonium forms of
Nitrogen timing nitrogen or use of slow-release nitrogen fertilizers
Timing of nitrogen applications can play an impor-
may also be effective in controlling nitrogen
tant role in controlling nitrogen losses. Ideally,
losses. The relative probability of obtaining a corn
nitrogen would be applied just before the period
yield increase from use of a nitrification inhibitor is
of crop nitrogen use, providing adequate nitrogen
influenced by soil characteristics and the timing of
to the crop when it needs it and avoiding nitrogen
the nitrogen applications (Table 6.6). Usually, a
losses that could occur when applied earlier than
Table 6.6. Relative probability of increasing corn yield using a nitrification inhibitor.
Time of nitrogen application

Soil type Fall Spring preplant Spring sidedress
Sands and loamy sands Not recommended Good Poor
Sandy loams and loams Fair Good Poor
Silt loams and clay loams
Well drained Fair Poor Poor
Somewhat poorly drained Good Fair Poor
Poorly drained Good Good Poor
positive response will occur only where use of the
inhibitor reduced or eliminated nitrogen losses
due to leaching or denitrification.
Nutrient management planning

Nitrogen (N) recommendations provided to pro-
ducers by Land Grant Universities and Extension
Services are receiving increasing scrutiny because
of continuing concerns about the effects of agri-
cultural nitrogen use on water quality. Specifically,
nitrogen losses from agricultural systems have
been identified as likely contributors to elevated
groundwater nitrate concentrations and to the
hypoxic (low-oxygen) zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In
addition, university nitrogen recommendations are
being widely used as the technical criteria for
nutrient management regulatory policy. These
policies often view university recommendations as
a vehicle for achieving environmental objectives,
while the basis for developing the recommenda-
tions is agronomic. These issues and the need to
provide producers with reasonable economic
returns from nitrogen use in crop production
emphasize the need for reliable, science-based
nitrogen recommendations.
S
Phosphorus and potassium — Chapter
oil tests for phosphorus and potassium are
indices of available nutrients present in the
soil. These indices provide estimates of the
amount of additional phosphate or potash that
should be added to optimize profit for the farmer.
Phosphorus and potassium soil test levels are
reported in parts per million (ppm).
ents needed for crop growth and reduce the soil
test level to optimum. For soils testing high (H), the
phosphorus and potassium application rate is one-
half the rate at optimum. On very high (VH) testing
soils (used only for soil test potassium interpreta-
tion), the potassium fertilizer application rate is
one-quarter of the rate at optimum.
7
Soil test phosphorus and potassium interpretation For soils testing excessively high (EH) the applica-
categories vary by soil group because soils in each tion rate is zero, with the exception of potato and
group vary in the amount of phosphorus and corn which may respond to an application of
potassium that the soil can supply. Additionally, 20–30 lb/a each of P2O5 and K2O as starter fertil-
crops have been grouped into categories (demand izer. See Chapter 10 Starter Fertilizers for details.
levels) based on their responsiveness to phospho- The lower limit for the excessively high category is
rus and potassium (Table 4.3). Tables 7.1 and 7.2 set such that 2–4 years of crop nutrient removal
provide the soil test interpretation categories for without fertilizing will not reduce soil test levels
each crop demand level. Definitions of the inter- below the optimum category, except for crops
pretive levels used to indicate the soil’s relative where the whole plant is removed (corn silage,
nutrient supply of phosphorus and potassium are alfalfa and other forage legumes). These crops
provided in Table 3.2. Crops grown on soils testing remove large amounts of potassium, so retest soils
in the optimum range will have optimum yield and with very high and excessively high test levels
profit when the quantity of nutrients applied is every 2 years.
about equal to the amount removed in the har- For soils that test less than optimum, it is desirable
vested portion of the crop. The optimum soil test to build up soil test levels to the optimum
ranges for phosphorus and potassium are set category. The fertilizer application rates in the low
somewhat higher for vegetables, potatoes, and irri- (L) and very low (VL) categories include the
gated field crops because of their high crop values. amount of fertilizer that will be removed by the
Each soil’s ability to hold phosphorus and potas- harvested portion of the crop (application rate at
sium along with phosphorus and potassium optimum) plus an additional amount to build up
buffering capacity (the amount of fertilizer soil test levels over a 4- to 6-year period. In the low
required to change soil test level by 1 ppm) is category, the buildup amount is calculated as the
related to soil texture, mineralogy, and organic change in soil test level that is desired (ppm differ-
matter content. The approximate nutrient buffer ence between the middle of the optimum
capacity of each soil group is provided in Table 7.3. category and the middle of the low category) mul-
Note that soil group X applies only to soil test tiplied by the nutrient buffering capacity for the
phosphorus interpretation category and the soil group divided by four to six years. In the very
nutrient buffer capacity is based on a soil series’ low category, the buildup amount is calculated as
primary soil group. the change in soil test level that is desired (ppm
difference between the middle of the optimum
Phosphorus and potassium category and the top of the very low category)
multiplied by the nutrient buffering capacity for
application rate guidelines the soil group divided by four to six years.
When the soil test is optimum (Opt), the fertilizer
Once the soil test interpretation categories have
application rate is equivalent to the amount of
been identified, the phosphate and potash fertil-
phosphate and potash removed in the harvested
izer application rates may be determined. Table 7.4
portion of the crop. This is considered a mainte-
provides the phosphate and potash fertilizer appli-
nance application, resulting in little change in soil
cation rate based on the soil test interpretation
test level. For soils that test greater than optimum,
category for each crop.
the objective of the nutrient application guidelines
is to rely on the soil to supply the bulk of the nutri-
Table 7.1. Soil test phosphorus interpretation categories.
Soil test category

Very low Low Optimum High Excessively
Soil group (VL) (L) (Opt) (H) high (EH)
————————————— Soil test phosphorus, ppm a —————————————
Demand level 1 (corn grain)
A <5 5–10 11–15 16–25 >25
B <10 10–15 16–20 21–30 >30
C <10 10–15 16–20 21–30 >30
D <8 8–12 13–18 19–28 >28
E <12 12–22 23–32 33–42 >42
O <12 12–22 23–32 33–42 >42
X <5 5–8 9–15 16–25 >25
Demand level 2 (soybeans and low-demand field crops)
A — <6 6–10 11–20 >20
B — <6 6–10 11–20 >20
C — <8 8–13 14–23 >23
D — <6 6–10 11–20 >20
E — <10 10–15 16–25 >25
O — <10 10–15 16–25 >25
X — <6 6–10 11–17 >17
Demand level 3 (alfalfa, corn silage, irrigated field crops, and low-demand vegetable crops)
A <10 10–15 16–23 24–32 >32
B <10 10–17 18–23 24–30 >30
C <12 12–17 18–25 26–35 >35
D <10 10–15 16–23 24–30 >30
E <18 18–25 26–37 38–55 >55
O <18 18–25 26–37 38–55 >55
X <5 5–10 11–15 16–23 >23
Demand level 4 (red clover and medium-demand field crops)
A <10 10–15 16–20 21–25 >25
B <10 10–15 16–20 21–25 >25
C <12 12–17 18–23 24–30 >30
D <8 8–12 13–18 19–23 >23
E <15 15–22 23–30 31–38 >38
O <15 15–22 23–30 31–38 >38
X <5 5–10 11–15 16–20 >20
Demand level 5 (high-demand vegetable crops)
A <15 15–30 31–45 46–75 >75
B <15 15–30 31–45 46–75 >75
C <15 15–30 31–45 46–75 >75
D <15 15–30 31–45 46–75 >75
E <18 18–35 36–50 51–80 >80
O <18 18–35 36–50 51–80 >80
X <10 10–25 26–40 41–60 >60
Demand level 6 (potato)
A <100 100–160 161–200 >200 ––
B <100 100–160 161–200 >200 ––
C <100 100–160 161–200 >200 ––
D <100 100–160 161–200 >200 ––
E <60 60–90 91–125 126–160 >160
O <60 60–90 91–125 126–160 >160
X <36 36–60 61–75 76–120 >120
42 a ppm (wt/vol; g/m3)
Table 7.2. Soil test potassium interpretation categories. CHAPTER
Very low Low

Soil test category
Optimum High Very high Excessively
7
Soil group (VL) (L) (Opt) (H) (H) high (EH)
Phosphorus and potassium

——————————————— Soil test potassium, ppm a ———————————————
Demand level 1 (corn grain)
A <60 60–80 81–100 101–140 — >140
B <70 70–90 91–110 111–150 — >150
C <60 60–70 71–100 101–140 — >140
D <70 70–100 101–130 131–160 — >160
E <45 45–65 66–90 91–130 — >130
O <45 45–65 66–90 91–130 — >130
Demand level 2 (soybeans and low-demand field crops)
A <50 50–80 81–100 101–120 121–140 >140
B <50 50–80 81–100 101–120 121–140 >140
C <40 40–70 71–90 91–110 111–130 >130
D <70 70–100 101–120 121–140 141–160 >160
E –– <60 60–80 81–100 101–120 >120
O –– <60 60–80 81–100 101–120 >120
Demand level 3 (alfalfa, corn silage, irrigated field crops and low-demand vegetable crops)
A <70 70–90 91–120 121–150 151–220 >220
B <70 70–90 91–120 121–150 151–220 >220
C <55 55–70 71–100 101–130 131–200 >200
D <90 90–110 111–140 141–170 171–240 >240
E <50 50–80 81–120 121–160 161–220 >220
O <50 50–80 81–120 121–160 161–220 >220
Demand level 4 (red clover and medium-demand field crops)
A <55 55–70 71–100 101–120 121–150 >150
B <55 55–70 71–100 101–120 121–150 >150
C <50 50–65 66–90 91–110 111–130 >130
D <60 60–80 81–120 121–140 141–160 >160
E <45 45–60 61–90 91–110 111–130 >130
O <45 45–60 61–90 91–110 111–130 >130
Demand level 5 (high-demand vegetable crops)
A <60 60–120 121–180 181–200 201–220 >220
B <60 60–120 121–180 181–200 201–220 >220
C <50 50–110 111–160 161–180 181–200 >200
D <80 80–140 141–200 201–220 221–240 >240
E <50 50–100 101–150 151–165 166–180 >180
O <50 50–100 101–150 151–165 166–180 >180
Demand level 6 (potato)
A <80 80–120 121–160 161–180 181–210 >210
B <80 80–120 121–160 161–180 181–210 >210
C <70 70–100 101–150 151–170 171–190 >190
D <80 80–120 121–170 171–190 191–220 >220
E <70 70–100 101–130 131–160 161–190 >190
O <70 70–100 101–130 131–160 161–190 >190
a ppm (wt/vol; gm/m3)
43
If the realistic yield goal for a particular crop on a for growing alfalfa, or other crops where large
given field is greater than the yield levels provided amounts of potassium are removed (corn silage,
in Table 7.4, a fertilizer application rate for the forage legumes). While group D soils have a low
optimum category can be determined by multiply- potassium buffering capacity, they can hold much
ing the yield goal by the amount of phosphorus or more potassium than soils in groups E and O.
potassium that will be removed in the harvested Where alfalfa is to be grown, increase the recom-
portion of the crop (see Table 4.3). If the soil test mended K2O application rate by 20% if stand per-
interpretation category is something other than sistence is of primary importance and the stand is
optimum, the fertilizer rate can be determined to be maintained for more than 3 years. If phos-
using the approach outlined above. phorus and potassium fertilizer applications were
made for corn grain but the corn was instead har-
Additional considerations vested for silage, increase fertilizer application
Nutrient recommendations for crops grown on rates for the next crop by 30 lb P2O5/a and 90 lb
sands and organic soils are limited by the nutrient K2O/a if soil test phosphorus and potassium were
holding capacity of these soils, particularly for less than excessively high. If soil test phosphorus
potassium. Because potassium leaches readily and/or potassium were excessively high, then
from organic soils and irrigated sands, and because there is no need to apply an additional amount of
specialty crop growers tend to use larger amounts that nutrient.
of fertilizer, soil test values may fluctuate rapidly. For fruit crops, phosphorus and potassium nutrient
For this reason, irrigated fields and fields in veg- application rates are provided for establishment of
etable production should be soil sampled every the crop. Nutrient application rates after the estab-
year or every other year. If the crop to be grown lishment year should be based on tissue testing
has a demand level of 1, 2, or 4, and will be irri- with the goal of achieving and maintaining tissue
gated, then demand level 3 should be used. nutrient concentration sufficiency.
Soils with relatively low potassium buffering
capacities (soil groups D, E, and O) should be moni- Sample averaging
tored more closely by testing every 2 years. These The fertilizer application rate guidelines for phos-
soils do not hold sufficient potassium to allow for phorus and potassium should be based on the
several years of high-yielding crops when the average of all samples from a given field. If the soil
whole plant is removed. Because group O soils test value of an individual sample is significantly
hold so little potassium, these soils are not suited
Table 7.3. Phosphorus and potassium buffer

capacities; the rate of fertilizer (oxide basis)
required to increase soil test level 1 ppm.
Soil group P buffer capacity K buffer capacity

lb P2O5/a lb K2O/a
per 1 ppm soil test P per 1 ppm soil test K
A 18 7
B 18 7
C 18 7
D 18 6
E 12 6
O 18 5
CHAPTER
7
higher than the average, then the value for that
Phosphorus and potassium

sample can be eliminated and the average recalcu-
lated. The remaining values are then reexamined
against the new mean. For phosphorus, values that
exceed the mean by more than 5 ppm should be
removed; for potassium, values that exceed the
mean by more than 20 ppm should be removed.
Where only two samples were taken in a field, no
samples can be discarded. No more than one soil
sample can be eliminated from fields with three or
four samples, and no more than two soil samples
can be excluded from fields containing five or
more samples. After samples have been removed,
if needed, the adjusted average soil test value can
be used to obtain a phosphorus and potassium
recommendation.
Phosphorus and the environment

Phosphorus loss from the soil via surface runoff
and leaching is a concern with regard to water
quality. Wisconsin research has found that as soil
test phosphorus levels increase, phosphorus loss
to surface water also increases. A balance must be
struck between crop production and environmen-
tal quality. For most field and forage crops
(demand levels 1, 2, 3, and 4) there is very little
probability of a yield response to additional phos-
phorus (from fertilizer or manure) once the soil test
level exceeds about 30 ppm (Table 3.2). Thus, it is
not desirable to maintain excessively high soil test
levels for these crops. If crop rotations do not
contain a high phosphorus demanding crop
(demand levels 5 and 6) and soil test phosphorus
levels are between 50 and 100 ppm, phosphorus
applications from fertilizer and manure should be
reduced and crops with a high phosphorus
removal should be grown. If soil test phosphorus
exceeds 100 ppm, no additional phosphorus
should be applied until soil test levels are drawn
down. Maintaining soil test phosphorus levels near
optimum will ensure adequate yield and provide
flexibility in nutrient management planning.
For more information on phosphorus and water
quality see Understanding Soil Phosphorus (A3771).
Table 7.4. Phosphorus and potassium fertilizer application rate guidelines.
P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

Crop Yield goal VL a La Opt H EH VL b Lb Opt H VH EH
per acre —————— lb P2O5/a to apply c —————— —————————— lb K2O/a to apply d ———————————
Alfalfa, established e 2.6–3.5 ton 80 65 40 20 0 230 220 180 90 45 0
Alfalfa, established e 5.6 –6.5 ton 120 105 80 40 0 410 400 360 180 90 0
Alfalfa, seeding 1.0–2.5 ton 65 50 25 15 0 155 145 105 55 25 0
Apple f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
Asparagus 2000–4000 lb 85 60 10 5 0 120, 145 80, 105 20 10 5 0
Barley, grain 25–50 bu 50 40 15 10 0 55 45 15 10 5 0
Barley, grain 51–75 bu 60 50 25 15 0 60 50 20 10 5 0
Barley, grain 76–100 bu 70 60 35 20 0 70 60 30 15 10 0
Barley, grain + straw g 25–50 bu 70 60 35 20 0 115 105 75 40 20 0
46
Bean, dry (kidney, navy) 10–20 cwt 60 45 20 10 0 75 65 25 15 5 0
Bean, lima 2000–3000 lb 60 45 20 10 0 95 85 45 25 10 0
Bean, lima 3001–4000 lb 70 55 30 15 0 110 100 60 30 15 0
Bean, lima 4001–5000 lb 80 65 40 20 0 125 115 75 40 20 0
Bean, snap 1.5–2.5 ton 50 35 10 5 0 90 80 40 20 10 0
Bean, snap 2.6–3.5 ton 55 40 15 10 0 110 100 60 30 15 0
Bean, snap 3.6–4.5 ton 60 45 20 10 0 130 120 80 40 20 0
Bean, snap 4.6–5.5 ton 65 50 25 15 0 150 140 100 50 25 0
Bean, snap 5.6–6.5 ton 70 55 30 15 0 170 160 120 60 30 0
Beet, table 5–10 ton 85 60 10 5 0 160, 185 120, 145 60 30 15 0
Beet, table 10.1–15.0 ton 90 65 15 10 0 200, 225 160, 185 100 50 25 0
Beet, table 15.1–20.0 ton 100 75 25 15 0 240, 265 200, 225 140 70 35 0
Blueberry f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
Brassica, forage 2–3 ton 65 50 25 15 0 170 160 120 60 30 0
Table 7.4. Phosphorus and potassium fertilizer application rate guidelines (continued).

Broccoli 4–6 ton 85 60 10 5 0 140, 165 100, 125 40 20 10 0
Brussels sprouts 4–6 ton 90 65 15 10 0 145, 170 105, 130 45 25 10 0
Buckwheat 1200–2000 lb — 30 20 10 0 80 35, 60 20 10 5 0
Cabbage 8–12 ton 90 65 15 10 0 170, 195 130, 155 70 35 20 0
Cabbage 12.1–20.0 ton 100 75 25 15 0 215, 240 175, 200 115 60 30 0
Cabbage 20.1–30.0 ton 115 90 40 20 0 280, 305 240, 265 180 90 45 0
Canola 30–50 bu 80 70 45 25 0 125 110 80 40 20 0
Carrot 20–30 ton 120 95 45 25 0 340, 365 300, 325 240 120 60 0
Cauliflower 6–8 ton 95 70 20 10 0 150, 175 110, 135 50 25 15 0
Celery 25–35 ton 175 150 100 50 0 400, 425 360, 385 300 150 75 0
Cherry f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
Clover, red, established 2.6–3.5 ton 75 65 40 20 0 220 210 180 90 45 0
47
Clover, red, seeding 1.0–2.5 ton 60 50 25 15 0 145 135 105 55 25 0
Corn, grain h 71–90 bu 65 55 30 15 0 70 55 25 15 5 0
Corn, grain h 91–110 bu 75 65 40 20 0 75 60 30 15 10 0
Corn, grain h 111–130 bu 80 70 45 25 0 80 65 35 20 10 0
Corn, grain h 131–150 bu 90 80 55 30 0 85 70 40 20 10 0
Corn, grain h 151–170 bu 95 85 60 30 0 90 75 45 25 10 0
Corn, grain h 171–190 bu 105 95 70 35 0 95 80 50 25 15 0
Corn, grain h 191–220 bu 110 100 75 40 0 105 90 60 30 15 0
Corn, popcorn 60–80 bu 65 50 25 15 0 70 60 20 10 5 0
a Where there are two application rates in a category the lower rate f Rates only applicable prior to establishment of fruit crops. h At EH soil test levelsP2O5 and K2O is not recommended;
is for soils in groups E, O, and X, and the higher rate is for soils in Incorporate all P2O5 and K2O before planting. For established however, there are some situations where corn will benefit from
groups A–D. fruit crops, use tissue testing to guide fertilizer application rates. some P2O5 and K2O in starter fertilizer. See Chapter 10 Starter
b Where there are two application rates in a category the lower g Includes removal of both mature grain and straw. Recommendations Fertilizer for more detail.
rate is for soils in groups E and O, and the higher rate is for soils at optimum were calculated by adding phosphate/potash removal i Includes bromegrass, fescue, orchardgrass, ryegrass, and timothy.
in groups A–D. in the grain for each yield level to a fixed amount of phosphate/ j Most P O and K O should be incorporated prior to seeding.
potash removed by straw. Phosphate and potash removals by 2 5 2
c Total amount of P O to apply including starter fertilizer. These guidelines are for sod farms only.
2 5 straw were calculated assuming the following constant straw
d Total amount of K O to apply including starter fertilizer.
2 yield: barley, 2 ton/a; oats, 2 ton/a; rye, 1.5 ton/a; soybean, 3 ton/a;
e If stand will be maintained for more than 3 years, increase top- triticale, 1.5 ton/a; wheat, 2 ton/a. Straw yield level assumptions
dressed K2O by 20%. are based on Wisconsin research and data in Havlin et al. 1999.

Corn, silage 10–16 ton 85 70 45 25 0 160 150 110 55 30 0
Corn, silage 16.1–20.0 ton 105 90 65 35 0 200 190 150 75 40 0
Corn, silage 20.1–25.0 ton 120 105 80 40 0 235 225 185 95 45 0
Corn, silage 25.1–35.0 ton 150 135 110 55 0 300 290 250 125 65 0
Corn, sweet 2–4 ton 50 35 10 5 0 70 60 20 10 5 0
Corn, sweet 4.1–6.0 ton 55 40 15 10 0 80 70 30 15 10 0
Corn, sweet 6.1–8.0 ton 65 50 25 15 0 90 80 40 20 10 0
Corn, sweet 8.1–10.0 ton 70 55 30 15 0 105 95 55 30 15 0
Cranberry f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
CRP, alfalfa — 40 25 0 0 0 50 40 0 0 0 0
CRP, grass — — 10 0 0 0 60 15, 40 0 0 0 0
CRP, red clover — 35 25 0 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 0
Cucumber 5–10 ton 85 60 10 5 0 125, 150 85, 110 25 15 5 0
Flax 20–40 bu — 30 20 10 0 80 35, 60 20 10 5 0
48
Ginseng 1000–3000 lb 90 65 15 10 0 160, 185 120, 145 60 30 15 0
Grape f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
Lettuce 15–20 ton 115 90 40 20 0 260, 285 220, 245 160 80 40 0
Lupine 40–60 bu 85 75 50 25 0 100 90 60 30 15 0
Melon 8–10 ton 115 90 40 20 0 245, 270 205, 230 145 75 35 0
Millet 40–60 bu — 30 20 10 0 80 35, 60 20 10 5 0
Mint, oil 35–55 lb 125 100 50 25 0 300, 325 260, 285 200 100 50 0
Oats, grain 30–60 bu 50 40 15 10 0 50 40 10 5 5 0
Oats, grain 61–90 bu 55 45 20 10 0 55 45 15 10 5 0
Oats, grain 91–120 bu 65 55 30 15 0 60 50 20 10 5 0
Oats, grain + straw g 30–60 bu 65 55 30 15 0 145 135 105 55 25 0
Onion 400–600 cwt 135 110 60 30 0 230, 255 190, 215 130 65 35 0
Pasture, legume-grass 2–3 ton 70 60 35 20 0 170 160 130 65 35 0
Pasture, legume-grass 3.1–4.0 ton 80 70 45 25 0 220 210 180 90 45 0
Pasture, legume-grass 4.1–5.0 ton 95 85 60 30 0 270 260 230 115 60 0

Pasture, managed i 2–3 ton 75 65 40 20 0 185 170 140 70 35 0
Pasture, managed i 3.1–4.0 ton 90 80 55 30 0 240 225 195 100 50 0
Pasture, managed i 4.1–5.0 ton 105 95 70 35 0 295 280 250 125 65 0
Pasture, unimproved 1–2 ton — 35 25 15 0 115 70, 95 55 30 15 0
Pasture, unimproved 2.1–3.0 ton — 50 40 20 0 150 105, 130 90 45 25 0
Pasture, unimproved 3.1–4.0 ton — 65 55 30 0 185 140, 165 125 65 30 0
Pea, canning 1000–2500 lb 50 35 10 5 0 65 55 15 10 5 0
Pea, canning 2501–4000 lb 55 40 15 10 0 80 70 30 15 10 0
Pea, canning 4001–6000 lb 65 50 25 15 0 95 85 45 25 10 0
Pea, chick/field/cow 1–2 ton 70 55 30 15 0 85 75 35 20 10 0
Pepper 8–10 ton 85 60 10 5 0 150, 175 110, 135 50 25 15 0
Potato 250–350 cwt 130, 235 105, 165 65 65 30 205, 240 190, 210 180 120 75 30
Potato 351–450 cwt 145, 250 120, 180 80 70 30 255, 290 240, 260 230 145 90 30
Potato 451–550 cwt 155, 260 130, 190 90 75 30 305, 340 290, 310 280 170 100 30
49
Potato 551–650 cwt 165, 270 140, 200 100 80 30 355, 390 340, 360 330 195 115 30
Pumpkin 15–20 ton 125 100 50 25 0 210, 235 170, 195 110 55 30 0
Raspberry f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
Reed canarygrass 4–7 ton — 50 40 20 0 240 195, 220 180 90 45 0
Rye, grain 15–30 bu 45 35 10 5 0 45 35 5 5 0 0
Rye, grain 31–50 bu 50 40 15 10 0 55 45 15 10 5 0
Rye, grain 51–70 bu 60 50 25 15 0 60 50 20 10 5 0
Rye, grain + straw g 15–30 bu 50 40 15 10 0 80 70 40 20 10 0

Small grain silage 2–3.5 ton 65 55 30 15 0 160 150 120 60 30 0
Small grain silage,
underseeded with alfalfa 2–3.5 ton 65 55 30 15 0 160 150 120 60 30 0
Small grain & legume silage 2–3.5 ton 65 55 30 15 0 160 150 120 60 30 0
Small grain & legume silage,
underseeded with alfalfa 2–3.5 ton 65 55 30 15 0 160 150 120 60 30 0
Sod, establishment j all 130 90 45 45 45 90 45 45 45 45 45
Sorghum, grain 50–100 bu — 40 30 15 0 90 45, 70 30 15 10 0
Sorghum-sudan forage 5–7 ton — 100 90 45 0 420 375, 400 360 180 90 0
Soybean, grain 15–25 bu — 25 15 10 0 90 45, 70 30 15 10 0
Soybean, grain 26–35 bu — 35 25 15 0 100 55, 80 40 20 10 0
Soybean, grain 36–45 bu — 40 30 15 0 115 70, 95 55 30 15 0
Soybean, grain 46–55 bu — 50 40 20 0 130 85, 110 70 35 20 0
Soybean, grain 56–65 bu — 60 50 25 0 145 100, 125 85 45 20 0
50
Soybean, grain 66–75 bu — 65 55 30 0 160 115, 140 100 50 25 0
Soybean, grain 76–85 bu — 75 65 35 0 170 125, 150 110 55 30 0
Soybean, grain + straw g 15–25 bu — 40 30 15 0 145 100, 125 85 45 20 0
Spinach 4–6 ton 95 70 20 10 0 150, 175 110, 135 50 25 15 0
Squash 12–16 ton 115 90 40 20 0 190, 215 150, 175 90 45 25 0
Strawberry f all 200 125 NA NA NA 250 200 NA NA NA NA
Sunflower 500–1200 lb 45 35 10 5 0 65 50 20 10 5 0
Sunflower 1201–2500 lb 55 45 20 10 0 90 75 45 25 10 0
Sunflower 2501–4000 lb 75 65 40 20 0 125 110 80 40 20 0
Tobacco 1600–2000 lb 90 65 15 10 0 205, 230 165, 190 105 55 25 0
Tobacco 2001–2400 lb 95 70 20 10 0 225, 250 185, 210 125 65 30 0
Tobacco 2401–2800 lb 100 75 25 15 0 250, 275 210, 235 150 75 40 0

Tomato 20–25 ton 115 90 40 20 0 280, 305 240, 265 180 90 45 0
Trefoil, birdsfoot, established 2.6–3.5 ton 75 65 40 20 0 220 210 180 90 45 0
Trefoil, birdsfoot, seeding 1–2.5 ton 60 50 25 15 0 145 135 105 55 25 0
Triticale, grain 1000–5000 lb 70 60 35 20 0 70 60 30 15 10 0
Triticale, grain + straw g 1000–5000 lb 75 65 40 20 0 100 90 60 30 15 0
Truck crops all 115 90 40 20 0 220, 245 180, 205 120 60 30 0
Vetch, crown/hairy 2–3 ton 75 65 40 20 0 160 150 120 60 30 0
Wheat, grain 20–40 bu 55 40 15 10 0 60 50 10 5 5 0
Wheat, grain 41–60 bu 65 50 25 15 0 70 60 20 10 5 0
Wheat, grain 61–80 bu 75 60 35 20 0 75 65 25 15 5 0
Wheat, grain 81–100 bu 85 70 45 25 0 80 70 30 15 10 0
Wheat, grain + straw g 20–40 bu 65 50 25 15 0 115 105 65 35 15 0
51
Wildlife food plot,
corn/forage brassicas — — 10 0 0 0 60 15, 40 0 0 0 0
Wildlife food plot,
legume grass pasture — 35 25 0 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 0
Wildlife food plot, oats/wheat/rye — 35 25 0 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 0
Wildlife food plot, soybean — — 10 0 0 0 60 15, 40 0 0 0 0
Wildlife food plot, sugar beet/turnip — 35 25 0 0 0 40 30 0 0 0 0
8
Chapter — Secondary and micronutrients
Secondary nutrients
Sulfur
S
everal research studies since 1968 have shown
that sulfur (S) may be deficient in some parts
of Wisconsin. Sulfur deficiencies are most
likely to occur when high sulfur-demanding crops
such as alfalfa, canola, or forage brassicas are
value and the assumptions for each input are
described below:
SAI = (soil test SO4-S x 4) + subsoil-S +
precipitation-S + (% organic matter x 2.8 lb/a)
+ available manure-S
Subsoil sulfur. Some subsoils, especially those that
are acidic and clayey, may contain enough sulfur
for high-yielding crops even though the plow layer
grown on sandy soils or on other soils low in
may test low. The relative level of sulfur in subsoil
organic matter that are far from urbanized areas
is provided as the subsoil sulfur code in Table 4.1.
and have not received manure within the last 2
The subsoil sulfur code is either low, medium, or
years.
high. The estimated amount of available sulfur for
Sulfur avilability index (SAI). The sulfur availabil- each suboil sulfur code is dependent upon the soil
ity index (SAI) is used to determine the relative group. See Table 8.1 for interpretation of the
level of plant available sulfur. The SAI is composed subsoil sulfur codes. These subsoil sulfur estimates
of soil test sulfate-sulfur (SO4-S) along with esti- are based on surveys conducted in 1974, 1985, and
mates of sulfur from subsoil, precipitation, organic 1989. If a profile sulfate-sulfur test has been con-
matter mineralization, and manure applications. ducted on a field (with a profile nitrate-nitrogen
This index, first developed in 1991, was modified in test, for example), the results can be used to adjust
2005 to reflect lower atmospheric sulfur inputs as the SAI. To adjust the SAI, substitute the measured
well as reduced subsoil sulfur levels. These inputs subsoil sulfur (converted to lb/a) for the estimated
are added together and reported as the SAI. The subsoil sulfur.
following equation is used to calculate the SAI
Precipitation. The amount of sulfur from precipita-
tion is based on surveys performed by the
Figure 8.1. Sulfate-sulfur in precipitation. National Atmospheric Deposition Program, 1999.
Estimates of precipitation sulfur by county are
given in Table 4.2 and are provided graphically in
Figure 8.1.
Organic matter. The sulfur contributed by organic
matter is estimated by assuming that soil organic
matter contains 0.56% total sulfur and that 2.5% of
this is made available annually. This translates to
2.8 lb S/a per 1% organic matter in the plow layer.
Manure. The amount of sulfur available from
manure depends on the total amount applied and
its availability. The amount of total manure sulfur
applied varies with the animal species and applica-
tion rate. For estimates of total sulfur in various
types of manures see Table 9.2. It is assumed that
55% of the total manure sulfur applied will be
available the first year after application, 10% will
be available the second year, and 5% will be avail-
able the third year. If a manure analysis has been
performed and includes total sulfur, then a
5 lb S/a 10 lb S/a 15 lb S/a farm/field specific value of total manure sulfur can
be used to estimate available sulfur in the calcula-
tion of SAI.
CHAPTER
8
SAI interpretation and sulfur recommendations are requirement based on crop removal of sulfur. Be
Secondary and micronutrients

provided in Table 8.2. sure to evaluate sulfur need through soil and
All sulfate forms of fertilizer are equally effective tissue testing when growing crops with a high
when surface-applied or incorporated. Elemental sulfur need.
sulfur, however, is insoluble and must be trans- Shallow-rooted crops grown on low-sulfur soils will
formed into sulfate-sulfur by soil bacteria before generally benefit from annual applications of
plants can use it. The rate of this transformation smaller amounts of sulfur. For annuals, incorporate
depends on particle size, degree of mixing with elemental sulfur. If alfalfa will be grown on soils
the soil, and soil temperature. To be effective, ele- needing sulfur, either elemental sulfur or sulfate
mental sulfur should be worked into the soil well forms such as potassium sulfate, ammonium
in advance of the time the crop needs it. Without sulfate, potassium-magnesium sulfate, or calcium
mechanical incorporation, elemental sulfur is sulfate (gypsum) can be used. If the soil is known
incorporated to some extent by falling into cracks to be deficient in sulfur, include some sulfate-sulfur
when the soil dries or by the activity of earth- in topdress applications for immediate sulfur avail-
worms and burrowing insects. ability. When applied at recommended rates,
Crops such as alfalfa and corn silage can remove sulfate-sulfur will generally last for two or more
large amounts of sulfur in one season. Table 8.3 years while elemental sulfur should last for the
provides a relative ranking of a crop’s sulfur term of the stand. Sandy soils may require annual
applications of sulfate forms of sulfur because the
sulfate leaches through these soils relatively
Table 8.1. Interpretation of subsoil sulfur rapidly. Irrigation water, however, may contain suf-
codes by soil group. ficient sulfate-sulfur for the crop. In these cases,
Subsoil S code response to fertilizer sulfur is likely only in years
Soil group L M H with above-average rainfall, when little irrigation
— lb S/a in the subsoil — water is applied. Additional information on sulfur is
available in Extension publication Soil and Applied
A 5 10 10
Sulfur (A2525).
B 5 10 10
C 5 5 10
D 5 5 10
E 5 5 —
O — — 20
Table 8.2. Sulfur availability index (SAI) interpretation and sulfur fertilizer
recommendations.
Sulfur availability index

<30 30–40 >40
Crop (low) (optimum) (adequate)
————— lb S/a to apply ————
Forage legumes
Incorporated at seeding 25–50 tissue test a 0
Topdressed on established stands 15–25 tissue test a 0
Corn, small grains, vegetable and fruit crops 10–25 tissue test a 0
a If SAI is 30–40, then confirm the need for sulfur with a tissue test. If tissue test is below optimum,
apply sulfur at the rate specified for an SAI < 30.
Calcium Soil test interpretation categories for magnesium
Calcium (Ca) is unlikely to be deficient for most are provided in Table 8.4. For soils testing high or
crops if lime recommendations are followed. Under above, a response to magnesium is unlikely. For
Wisconsin conditions, the soil pH would likely have optimum testing soils, magnesium levels should
to be below 5.0 before calcium deficiency be maintained through the use of dolomitic lime-
becomes apparent for most crops. Where plant stone. Magnesium deficiencies can be expected on
storage organs are not part of the plant water tran- sands and loamy sand soils (texture code 1) which
spiration stream (such as with potatoes and apples) test less than optimum and have a soil test potas-
and where soil test calcium is low, supplemental sium level above optimum. On these soils, applica-
calcium may be needed. Assuming that a pH tion of magnesium is necessary and potash appli-
increase is appropriate, the most effective way to cation should be reduced. For all other soils with a
supply this calcium is with application of the most very low or low magnesium soil test, magnesium
economical liming material available in your area. should be applied to increase soil test levels.
Soil test interpretation categories for calcium are The most economical way to apply magnesium
provided in Table 8.4. For soils testing optimum or and/or avoid a magnesium deficiency is to follow a
greater, response to calcium is unlikely. Except for good liming program with dolomitic limestone.
potato, response to calcium is also unlikely for soils When magnesium is recommended, a row applica-
testing low and very low. If potato is to be grown tion of 10–20 lb Mg/a can be applied annually
and there is no lime recommendation, 200 lb Ca/a where liming with dolomitic lime is undesirable or
should be applied to soils testing very low, and 100 where rapid correction is needed. Broadcast appli-
lb Ca/a should be applied to soils testing low. If cations of magnesium are generally not recom-
potato is to be grown and there is a lime recommended except when applying dolomitic lime.
mendation, the calcium applied in the lime will be Additional information on magnesium is available
adequate for low testing soils; for very low testing in Extension publication Soil and Applied
soils, apply 50–100 lb Ca/a in addition to the lime. Magnesium (A2524).
For additional information on calcium see
Calcium vs. magnesium
Extension publication Soil and Applied Calcium
Claims are made that an imbalance sometimes
(A2523).
exists between calcium and magnesium levels in
the soil. Proponents of this theory have suggested
Magnesium
that Wisconsin soils are adequate in calcium but
The magnesium content of Wisconsin soils varies
contain excessive or harmful levels of magnesium.
widely, but in most instances use of dolomitic lime-
They suggest that calcitic limestone (CaCO3) or
stone has prevented deficiency. Some soils,
gypsum (CaSO4) is needed to correct this condi-
however, are low in magnesium. These soils usually
tion. At present, no research data exists to support
are: 1) where applied liming materials are low in
this claim. Soil test level has proven to be a much
magnesium (examples include paper mill waste,
more reliable predictor of nutrient need than the
marl, or calcitic limestone); 2) very acid and sandy
ratio of nutrients. Similarly, there is no evidence to
soils (usually in central and north-central areas of
support claims that magnesium is toxic or that
the state) where large amounts of potassium have
Wisconsin soils have calcium to magnesium ratios
been applied repeatedly; or 3) calcareous organic
that are too low. Research shows that calcium to
soils. In sandy soils, high application rates of potas-
magnesium ratios for virtually all Wisconsin soils
sium or fertilizers containing ammonium often
fall within a rather wide optimum range. Applying
heighten magnesium deficiency. High concentra-
calcitic limestone or gypsum solely to add calcium
tions of these cations in the soil solution interfere
or change the calcium to magnesium ratio is not
with magnesium uptake by plants. This interfer-
recommended. Dolomitic limestone has a calcium
ence, called antagonism, usually does not occur
to magnesium ratio close to that found in most
when the soil contains more exchangeable mag-
crops. For additional information on calcium/mag-
nesium than exchangeable potassium.
CHAPTER
8
nesium ratios see Extension publications Soil Manganese

Calcium to Magnesium Ratios—Should You Be Manganese (Mn) deficiency is usually associated
Concerned? (A2986) and Soil Cation Ratios for Crop with neutral or calcareous mineral soils, with cal-
Production (FO-06437-GO). careous muck, and with organic soils that have
been burned. Manganese deficiency is highly
Micronutrients unlikely on soils that have a pH below 6.8.
Plants only need very small amounts of micronutri- Interpretation of manganese soil tests is appropri-
ents for maximum growth. When present in the ate for soils with organic matter contents less than
soil at excessive concentrations, micronutrients can or equal to 6.0%; see Table 8.4 for interpretation
harm plants. Thus, while a deficiency of any essen- categories. If soils have an organic matter content
tial element will greatly reduce plant growth, the greater than 6.0%, then manganese fertilizer rec-
overuse of micronutrients can produce a harmful ommendations are based on soil pH. For these
level of these nutrients in the soil which may be soils, manganese is considered to be low if soil pH
more difficult to correct than a deficiency. This is is > 6.9, optimum if soil pH is 6.0–6.9, and high if
particularly true on coarse-textured soils such as soil pH is <6.0.
sands, loamy sands, and sandy loams. Application rates for manganese are based on soil
Micronutrients should be applied when the soil test interpretation categories (Table 8.4) and
test is low, when verified deficiency symptoms relative crop need (Table 8.3). For soils testing
appear in the plant, or when certain crops have optimum or high, crop response to applied man-
very high requirements, such as boron for beets. ganese is unlikely. Additionally, crop response is
Relative micronutrient requirements of crops are unlikely on soils testing low for crops with a low
provided in Table 8.3. Currently, Wisconsin soil tests relative need for manganese. For low testing soils,
are available for boron, manganese, and zinc. The apply 3 or 5 lb Mn/a for crops with medium or
tests are interpreted in Table 8.4. Soil tests for high relative need, respectively. Because of rapid
copper, iron, and molybdenum are not sufficiently soil fixation, broadcast manganese applications are
calibrated for accurately predicting the supply of not effective. Instead, manganese should be
these nutrients in Wisconsin soils. Analysis of plant applied in the row for row crops or in the grain
tissue is a more reliable diagnostic tool than soil drill for small grains. Sulfate forms are recom-
testing for identifying micronutrient problems. mended for soil application. Chelate forms of man-
ganese are not effective when applied to the soil.
Boron For crops with a medium relative need growing on
The interpretation of the soil test for boron (B) low testing soils, foliarly apply 1 lb Mn/a as a
depends on the texture of the soil. Sandy soils do sulfate or 0.15 lb Mn/a as a chelate. For crops with
not hold boron as tightly as clayey soils. A high test a high relative need and low soil test, foliarly apply
in a sandy soil may be only optimum in a silt loam. 1.25 or 0.2 lb Mn/a as sulfate or chelate forms,
See Table 8.4 for interpretation of the soil test cate- respectively.
gories. Table 8.5 provides boron application rate To correct in-season manganese deficiencies, foliar
guidelines based on the soil test interpretation applications can be used at 1 lb Mn/a of as sulfate
category and a crop’s relative need for boron. On or 0.15 lb Mn/a as chelate. Multiple foliar applica-
sandy soils where alfalfa is grown, 1 lb B/a should tions may be necessary to alleviate the deficiency.
be applied annually because of the relatively low Additional information on manganese is available
boron retention of these soils. For more informa- in Extension publication Soil and Applied
tion about boron, consult Extension publication Manganese (A2526).
Soil and Applied Boron (A2522).
Zinc Molybdenum
Scalped or severely eroded soils are more likely to The availability of molybdenum (Mo) decreases as
be deficient in zinc (Zn) than well-managed soils. soil pH decreases. On soils with a pH below 5.5,
Zinc deficiencies are more common on sands, crops with a high molybdenum requirement (e.g.,
sandy loams, and organic soils because these soils broccoli and table beets) should be seed-treated
originally contain low total zinc levels. Zinc avail- with 0.2 oz Mo/a as ammonium or sodium molyb-
ability decreases markedly as the soil pH increases; date. Foliar treatment with 0.8 oz Mo/a is an alter-
therefore, zinc deficiency usually is limited to soils native treatment. Liming soils to optimal pH levels
with a pH above 6.5. Zinc deficiency has been usually eliminates molybdenum problems.
observed in tree fruits and ornamentals in Additional information on molybdenum is avail-
southern Wisconsin where irrigation with alkaline able in Extension publication Soil and Applied
or hard water has resulted in high soil pH. Molybdenum (A3555).
Application rates for zinc are based on soil test
interpretation category (Table 8.4) and relative
Iron
Iron (Fe) deficiency has not been observed on any
crop need (Table 8.3). Zinc should not be applied
field or vegetable crops in Wisconsin. Turfgrass, pin
to soils testing excessively high. Response to zinc
oak trees, and some ornamentals such as yews
fertilizer is unlikely on soils testing optimum or
have shown iron deficiency on soils with a pH
high and on low testing soils where the crop to be
greater than 7.5. This deficiency can be corrected
grown has a low relative need. For crops with a
by spraying the foliage with iron compounds such
medium and high relative need and a low or very
as ferrous sulfate or iron chelates or by decreasing
low soil test, confirm the need for zinc with plant
soil pH where practical. Additional information on
analysis.
iron is available in Extension publication Soil and
Zinc deficiencies may be corrected with either Applied Iron (A3554).
banded or broadcast applications of 2–4 lb Zn/a or
4–8 lb Zn/a, respectively. If using a chelated form, Chlorine
apply 0.5–1.0 lb Zn/a in the band or 1–2 lb Zn/a Crops require only very small amounts of chlorine
broadcast. Deficiencies may also be corrected with (Cl). Chlorine deficiency has never been observed
a foliar application by using 1.0 lb Zn/a of zinc in Wisconsin fields. This micronutrient is unlikely to
sulfate or 0.15 lb Zn/a of zinc chelate. More than become deficient in Wisconsin because it is often
one foliar application may be required for severe applied in fertilizer salts such as potassium
deficiencies. Additional information on zinc is avail- chloride, is present in manure, and is a universal
able in Extension publication Soil and Applied Zinc contaminant in dust and rainwater. Additional
(A2528). information on chlorine is available in Extension
publication Soil and Applied Chlorine (A3556).
Copper
Copper (Cu) deficiency is usually only seen on very
acid soils, particularly mucks. Because copper is not
easily leached from the soil, and it is not readily
fixed in unavailable forms, repeated fertilization
with copper is not necessary. It is unlikely that
there is any benefit from additions of more than a
total of 30 lb Cu/a to a soil over several years. In
addition, some toxicities have been reported at
high levels of use. Copper application rate guide-
lines are listed in Table 8.6. Additional information
on copper is available in Extension publication Soil
and Applied Copper (A2527).
CHAPTER
Table 8.3. Relative micronutrient and sulfur requirements of Wisconsin crops.
Crop Boron Copper Manganese Molybdenum Zinc Sulfur a

8

Alfalfa, established High Medium Low Medium Low High
Alfalfa, seeding High Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Apple Medium Medium — — Medium —
Asparagus Medium Low Low Low Low —
Barley, grain Low Medium Medium Low Medium Low
Barley, grain + straw Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
Bean, dry (kidney, navy) Low Low High Medium Medium Medium
Bean, lima Low Low High Medium Medium —
Bean, snap Low Low — — — —
Beet, table High High Medium High Medium —
Blueberry — — — — — —
Brassica, forage High — — High — High
Broccoli Medium Medium Medium High — —
Brussels sprouts Medium Medium Medium High — —
Buckwheat Low — — — — —
Cabbage Medium Medium Medium Medium Low High
Canola High Medium Medium Medium Medium High
Carrot Medium Medium Medium Low Low —
Cauliflower High Medium Medium High — —
Celery High Medium Medium Low — —
Cherry — — — — — —
Clover, Red Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Corn, grain Low Medium Medium Low High Medium
Corn, popcorn — — — — — —
Corn, silage Low Medium Medium Low High High
Corn, sweet Low Medium Medium Low High —
Cranberry — — — — — —
CRP, alfalfa High Medium Low Medium Low —
CRP, grass Low Low Medium Low Low —
CRP, red clover Medium Medium Low Medium Low —
Cucumber Low Medium Medium Low Medium —
Flax — — — — — Low
Ginseng — — — — — —
Grape — — — — — —
Lettuce Medium High High High Medium —
Lupine Low Low Low Medium Medium —
Melon Medium — — — — —
Millet Low — — — — Low
Mint, oil Low Low Medium Low Low —
Oats, grain Low Medium High Low Low Low
Oats, grain + straw Low Medium High Low Low Medium
Onion Low High High High High High
— = no data (continued)
a Relative sulfur needs are based on average annual crop removal rates:
low = <10 lb S/a, medium = 10–20 lb S/a, and high = >20 lb S/a.
Table 8.3. Relative micronutrient and sulfur requirements of Wisconsin crops (continued).
Crop Boron Copper Manganese Molybdenum Zinc Sulfur a

Pasture, legume-grass High Medium Low High Low —
Pasture, managed Low Low Medium Low Low —
Pasture, unimproved Low Low Medium Low Low —
Pea, canning Low Low Medium Medium Low —
Pea, chick/field/cow Low Low Medium Medium Low —
Pepper — — — — — —
Potato Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium
Pumpkin — — — — — —
Raspberry — — — — — —
Reed canarygrass Low Low Medium Low Low —
Rye, grain Low Low Low Low Low Low
Rye, grain + straw Low Low Low Low Low Low
Small grain silage Low Medium High Low Low —
Small grain silage, Low Medium High Low Low —
underseeded with alfalfa
Small grain & legume silage Low Medium High Low Low —
Small grain & legume silage, Low Medium High Low Low —
underseeded with alfalfa
Sod Low Low Medium Low Low —
Sorghum, grain Low Medium High Low High Medium
Sorghum-sudan, forage Low Medium High Low Medium High
Soybean, grain Low Low High Medium Medium Low
Soybean, grain + straw Low Low High Medium Medium High
Spinach Medium High High High High —
Squash — — — — — —
Strawberry — — — — — —
Sunflower High High — — — Low
Tobacco Medium Low Medium — Medium Medium
Tomato High High Medium Medium Medium High
Trefoil, birdsfoot High — — — — —
Triticale Low Low Medium — — —
Truck crops Medium Medium — — — —
Vetch, crown/hairy Medium — — — — —
Wheat, grain Low Medium High Low Low Low
Wheat, grain + straw Low Medium High Low Low Medium
Wildlife food plot,
corn/forage brassicas — — — — — —
Wildlife food plot,
legume grass pasture — — — — — —
Wildlife food plot,
oats/wheat/rye — — — — — —
Wildlife food plot, soybean — — — — — —
Wildlife food plot,
sugar beet/turnip — — — — — —
— = no data
a Relative sulfur needs are based on average annual crop removal rates:
low = <10 lb S/a, medium = 10–20 lb S/a, and high = >20 lb S/a.
CHAPTER
Table 8.4. Soil test interpretation categories for secondary nutrients and micronutrients.
Soil texture Soil test category

8
Nutrient code a Very low (VL) Low (L) Optimum (O) High (H) Excessively high (EH)

————————————— Soil test (ppm) —————————————
Calcium 1 0–200 201–400 401–600 >600 —
2, 3, 4 0–300 301–600 601–1000 >1000 —
Magnesium 1 0–25 26–50 51–250 >250 —
2, 3, 4 0–50 51–100 101–500 >500 —
Boron 1 0.0–0.2 0.3–0.4 0.5–1.0 1.1–2.5 >2.5
2, 4 0.0–0.3 0.4–0.8 0.9–1.5 1.6–3.0 >3.0
3 0.0–0.5 0.6–1.0 1.1–2.0 2.1–4.0 >4.0
Zinc 1, 2, 3, 4 0.0–1.5 1.6–3.0 3.1–20.0 21.0–40.0 >40.0
Manganese b 1, 2, 3, 4 — 0–10 11–20 >20 —
a Soil texture codes: 1 = sandy soils; 2 = loams, silts, and clays; 3 = organic soils; 4 = red soils. See Figure 4.1 for definitions of
each texture code.
b For manganese, soil tests are only used for soils with an organic matter content less than or equal to 6.0%. If soils have
organic matter content greater than 6.0 %, then soil pH is used as the basis for determining manganese requirements. See
text for more detail.
Table 8.5. Boron application rate guidelines.
Soil test Relative crop need a

category Low Medium High
——————————— lb B/a to apply ———————————
Very low Plant analysis b 2 3
Low Plant analysis b 1 2
Optimum Response unlikely Response unlikely Response unlikely
High Response unlikely Response unlikely Response unlikely
Excessively high Do not apply Do not apply Do not apply
a Refer to Table 8.3 for a list of relative crop needs for boron.
b Confirm need for boron with plant analysis.
Table 8.6. Copper fertilizer application rate guidelines. a
Soil texture
Sands Loams, silts, clays Organic
Crop Broad b Band b Broad Band Broad Band
————————————— lb Cu/a —————————————
Lettuce, onion, spinach 10 2 12 3 13 4
Alfalfa, carrot, cauliflower, celery,
clover, corn, oat, radish, sudangrass, 4 1 8 2 12 3
wheat
Asparagus, barley, bean, beet, broccoli,
cabbage, cucumber, mint, pea, potato, 0 0 0 0 0 2
rye, soybean
a Guidelines are for inorganic sources of copper. Copper chelates can also be used at one-sixth of the rates recommended
above. Do not apply copper unless a deficiency has been verified by plant analysis.
b Broad = broadcast application, band = banded application.
9
Chapter — Nutrient credits
A
nimal manures and leguminous crops
contain nutrients. When animal manures are
applied to a field, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and/or potassium fertilizer application rates should
be reduced. When legumes, including green
manures, are part of a crop rotation, nitrogen fertil-
izer (or manure) application rates should be
Potassium in manures is in the inorganic form and
is readily available to plants. For all manures first-
year potassium availability is considered to be
80%.
Manure sulfur is in both inorganic and organic
forms. First-year availability of manure sulfur is esti-
mated at 55%.
reduced. Reducing fertilizer application rates to
Manure nutrients are available to crops the second
account for the nutrients supplied by manures and
and third years after application. For all nutrients,
legumes is economically profitable, improves fertil-
second- and third-year availabilities are estimated
izer use efficiency, and enhances water quality.
at 10% and 5%, respectively, of the total amount
applied in the first year. The sum of the first-,
Manure second-, and third-year availabilities for a nutrient
Nutrient credits from a manure application should does not equal 100%. This is because some losses
be taken the first crop year after the application. will occur, particularly with nitrogen, and because
Because the nutrients in manure are not 100% manure applications are not always uniform in rate
available the first year after application, nutrient and composition across a field. These estimates of
credits may also be taken for the second and third nutrient availability are agronomically conservative
years. Estimated nutrient availabilities are given in to ensure that adequate nutrients are available for
Table 9.1. the crop.
First-year nitrogen availability varies with animal To calculate the nutrient credits from manure it is
species and depends upon whether or not the necessary to know the application rate and total
manure is incorporated within 3 days of applica- nutrient content of the manure. Total nutrient
tion (Table 9.1). This is because nitrogen in manure content can be measured on a manure sample
is in both inorganic (immediately available) and sent to most soil testing laboratories. For details on
organic (not immediately available) forms. The
inorganic form is nearly all present as ammonium. Table 9.1. Estimated nutrient availability for
Ammonium is easily volatilized to ammonia and various manures.
lost if manure lies on the soil surface. After 3 days,
—— N ——
all of the ammonium is assumed to have
Species Surface a Inc. a P2O5 K2O S
volatilized unless significant rainfall has occurred.
——————— % ———————
For this reason, the nitrogen credits for surface
applied, unincorporated manure are less than First-year availability
when manure is incorporated. Organic nitrogen Dairy 30 40 60 80 55

availability is dependent upon animal species and Veal calf 40 50 60 80 55
management plus environmental factors such as Beef 25 35 60 80 55
moisture and temperature that affect microbial Swine 50 65 60 80 55
decomposition. Poultry b 50 60 60 80 55
Phosphorus in manures is present in both inor- Sheep 25 35 60 80 55
ganic and organic forms. For most animal species, Horse 25 35 60 80 55
the inorganic phosphorus forms are dominant.
Second-year availability
Availability of manure phosphorus depends on the
All species 10 10 10 10 10
amount of inorganic phosphorus, mineralizable
Third-year availability
fraction of organic phosphorus, and interactions
with the soil. For all manures first-year phosphorus All species 5 5 5 5 5
a Surface = surface applied; Inc. = incorporated within 3 days
availability is considered to be 60%.
of application.
b Poultry includes chicken, duck, and turkey
CHAPTER
9
how to sample manure for testing, see Extension What are the second-year nutrient credits from dairy
Nutrient credits
publication Recommended Methods of Manure manure that is surface-applied at a rate of 20 tons/a?
Analysis (A3769). Where specific nutrient analysis From Table 9.2 the total N, P2O5, and K2O content
for a manure is unknown, typical nutrient contents are 10, 5, and 9 lb/ton, respectively. From Table 9.1
(also called book values) based on animal species the second-year nutrient availability is 10% for N,
and management can be used. Typical nutrient P2O5, and K2O.
contents of Wisconsin manures are provided in
N credit = 10 lb/ton x 0.1 x 20 ton/a = 20 lb N/a
Table 9.2. Because manure nutrient content can
vary greatly from farm to farm and book values P2O5 credit = 5 lb/ton x 0.1 x 20 ton/a = 10 lb P2O5/a
represent an average nutrient content, it is prefer- K2O credit = 9 lb/ton x 0.1 x 20 ton/a = 18 lb K2O/a
able to occasionally have all manure types on a
farm analyzed. Once manure application rate and
2. Example calculation:
total nutrient content are known, nutrient credits
can be calculated as follows. From the previous example, let’s say that 20 tons/a
of dairy manure was surface-applied last year and
First-year credits = total nutrient content x
15 tons/a of dairy manure was surface-applied this
% of nutrient that is available the first year after
year.
application x application rate
What are the total amount of manure nutrient credits
Second-year credits = total nutrient content x
for this year’s crop?
% of nutrient that is available the second year
after application x application rate Total nutrient credits this season:
Third-year credits = total nutrient content x N credit = 45 + 20 = 65 lb N/a

% of nutrient that is available the third year P2O5 credit = 45 + 10 = 55 lb P2O5/a
after application x application rate K2O credit = 108 + 18 = 126 lb K2O/a
If manure is applied in multiple years, the credits
are additive. In other words, take credits for current
Estimates of first-year available nutrients from
year nutrients plus any nutrient credits from the
typical manures in Wisconsin are provided in Table
previous 2 years.
9.3. This table should be used if manure has not
been tested and book value nutrient contents will
1. Example calculations: be used to determine nutrient credits. First-year
What are the first-year nutrient credits from solid nutrient credits are calculated by multiplying the
dairy manure that is surface-applied at a rate of estimated available nutrients (Table 9.3) by the
15 tons/a? manure application rate.
From Table 9.2 the total N, P2O5, and K2O content Guidelines for using manure as a nutrient source
are 10, 5, and 9 lb/ton, respectively. From Table 9.1 can be found in Extension publication Guidelines
the first-year nutrient availability is 30, 60, and 80% for Applying Manure to Cropland and Pasture in
for N, P2O5, and K2O, respectively. Wisconsin (A3392). Before applying manure, be
N credit = 10 lb/ton x 0.3 x 15 ton/a = 45 lb N/a sure you understand all applicable state and
federal regulatory requirements.
P2O5 credit = 5 lb/ton x 0.6 x 15 ton/a = 45 lb P2O5/a
K2O credit = 9 lb/ton x 0.8 x 15 ton/a = 108 lb K2O/a
Table 9.2. Typical total nutrient contents of manures
tested in Wisconsin.
Species/ Dry
management matter N P2O5 K2O S
Solid manure % ————— lb/ton —————
Dairy 24 10 5 9 1.5
Beef 35 14 9 11 1.6
Swine 20 14 10 9 2.7 Table 9.3. Estimated first year available nutrient contents
Duck 35 17 21 30 3.9 of manures. a
Chicken 60 40 50 30 3.9
Species/ N
Turkey 60 40 40 30 3.9 management Surface b Inc. b P2O5 K2O S
Sheep 45 26 18 40 2.7 Solid manure ——————— lb/ton ———————
Horse 45 10 6 10 2.5 Dairy 3 4 3 7 1
Liquid manure % ———— lb/1000 gal ———— Beef 4 5 5 9 1
Dairy 6 24 9 20 4.2 Swine 7 9 6 7 1
Veal calf 2 15 10 25 4.5 Duck 9 10 13 24 2
Beef 5 20 9 20 4.7 Chicken 20 24 30 24 2
Swine indoor pit 7 50 42 30 2.4 Turkey 20 24 24 24 2
Swine outdoor pit 4 34 16 20 2.4 Sheep 7 9 11 32 1
Swine, farrow— Horse 3 4 4 8 1
nursery indoor pit 3 25 23 22 4.0
Liquid manure —————— lb/1000 gal ——————
Poultry 3 16 10 12 9.1
Dairy 7 10 5 16 2
Veal calf 6 8 6 20 2
Beef 5 7 5 16 3
Swine indoor pit 25 33 25 24 1
Swine outdoor pit 17 22 10 16 1
Swine, farrow—
nursery indoor pit 13 16 14 18 2
Poultry 8 10 6 10 5
a These estimates are based on the typical total nutrient contents of
manures tested in Wisconsin (Table 9.2) multiplied by the estimated
first year nutrient availability (Table 9.1).
b Surface = surface applied; Incorp. = incorporated within 3 days of
application.
CHAPTER
9
Biosolids contain a disproportionately greater
Nutrient credits
Municipal biosolids
amount of phosphorus relative to nitrogen, which
and other wastes often results in the over-application of phosphorus
Municipal biosolids, also known as municipal when the selected rate is intended to meet the
sewage sludge, are the residual solid material nitrogen need of the crop. The availability of phos-
created from the treatment of wastewater. phorus in biosolids is generally thought to be less
Municipal biosolids are commonly land applied in than 100% and is variable between different treat-
Wisconsin. Wastewater and residuals from other ment processes. Research data to support esti-
sources (e.g. cheese factories, food processing, mated phosphorus availability is unavailable at this
paper mills) as well as solid wastes (municipal solid time. The WDNR has exempted the phosphorus in
waste compost, construction debris, flyash) are also biosolids in nutrient management planning.
often land applied. These materials can supply However, biosolids application may affect future
nutrients to crops and in some cases are used as nutrient management planning if soil test levels
liming agents. Many also supply organic material become elevated from biosolids and its use is dis-
that helps to improve soil structure and enhance continued. The potassium in biosolids should be
other soil physical properties. considered to be similar in availability to potas-
The application of these materials is regulated by sium in manures; 80% available the first year after
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources application. Soil testing every three to four years
(WDNR) according to a site-specific permit granted can be used to monitor changes in soil test phos-
for each material. The application rate is based on phorus and potassium levels with application of
an analysis of each material. Most municipal biosolids and other wastes.
biosolids application rates are based on meeting Several municipalities have opted to use lime sta-
the nitrogen need of the crop with the amount of bilization in their biosolid management process.
first-year available nitrogen rather than the total Lime-stabilized biosolids are an excellent liming
nitrogen content of the biosolids. This rate material and could be used as a substitute for
assumes that all the ammonium-nitrogen will be aglime as well as nitrogen fertilizer.
available in the year of application if the material is
Consult with the local WDNR office before
incorporated (or 50% if not incorporated) and that
applying municipal biosolids or industrial waste
25% of the organic nitrogen will become plant
materials. More information on site requirements
available in the first year. The remaining organic
and nutrient use from these materials can be
nitrogen from an initial application must be
obtained by consulting Wisconsin administrative
credited in the second and third year following
code documents Domestic Sewage Sludge
application at a value of 12 and 6%, respectively.
Management (NR 204), Land Treatment of Industrial
Liquid Wastes, By-product Solids, and Sludge (NR
214), and Landspreading of Solid Waste (NR 518).
Legumes Some varieties of alfalfa have been bred to fix
more nitrogen than others. As there has not been
Forage legumes research showing that these varieties significantly
Forage legume nitrogen credits are provided in change the amount of nitrogen available to the
Table 9.4. The nitrogen credit is the amount of fer- following crop or affect yields of the following
tilizer nitrogen that can be subtracted from the crop, forage varieties should be selected for yield
recommended application rate for a particular performance rather than nitrogen-fixing capability.
crop on a given soil type. The same crediting There is not sufficient Wisconsin data to recom-
system is used for pure legume as well as mixed mend changing nitrogen fertilizer replacement
legume-grass stands. The amount of nitrogen value based on variety.
available to a first year crop is dependent on the
density of the stand, the amount of regrowth, and Green manure crops
soil type. Research in Wisconsin has shown that a Forage legumes that are grown for only one
substantial amount of plant-available nitrogen is growing season without forage harvest and then
released in the second year following a forage incorporated into the soil provide somewhat lower
legume crop on medium and fine textured soils. amounts of nitrogen than forage legumes grown
Nitrogen credits are not affected by time or for several seasons. The amount of nitrogen
method of killing (tillage or herbicide) the forage depends on the length of time that the legume
legume stand. Forage legume nitrogen credits can has had to grow. A summer or fall-seeded legume
be confirmed with a pre-sidedress soil nitrate test that is incorporated into the soil in the spring will
(PSNT) as described in Chapter 6 Nitrogen. have comparatively little time to grow and will
Table 9.4. Forage legume nitrogen credits.
Medium/fine textured soils Sands/loamy sands

—————————— Regrowth (inches) ——————————
Crop/stand density >8 <8 >8 <8
—————————— lb N/a to credit ——————————
First-year credit
Alfalfa
Good (70–100% alfalfa, >4 plants/ft2) 190 150 140 100
Fair (30–70% alfalfa, 1.5–4 plants/ft2) 160 120 110 70
Poor (0–30% alfalfa, <1.5 plants/ft2) 130 90 80 40
Red clover, birdsfoot trefoil 80% of alfalfa credit for similar stands
Vetch 160 90 110 40
Second-year credit
All crops, good or fair stand 50 50 0 0
CHAPTER
9
therefore provide less nitrogen than one that is Field crop legumes
Nutrient credits
seeded in the spring or early summer. Leguminous field crops provide much smaller
Green manure nitrogen credits are provided in nitrogen credits compared to forage legumes and
Table 9.5. The age of a green manure stand should green manures. Nitrogen credits for crops follow-
be taken into account when determining what ing leguminous field crops are given in Table 9.6.
credit to take from the ranges provided in Table Do not take a soybean credit when corn (grain or
9.5. For spring-seeded green manures that are silage) is grown. The rotational effect of soybean
plowed under the following spring, use the upper grown prior to corn is already accounted for in the
end of the range given in Table 9.5; whereas fall- new nitrogen rate guidelines for corn outlined in
seeded green manure credits should be the lower Chapter 6 Nitrogen.
end of the range.
Table 9.5. Green manure nitrogen credits.
Crop < 6” growth > 6” growth

———— lb N/a to credit ————
Alfalfa 40 60–100 a
Clover, red 40 50–80 a
Clover, sweet 40 80–120 a
Vetch 40 40–90 a,b
a Use the upper end of the range for spring seeded green
manures that are plowed under the following spring. Use the
lower end of the range for fall seedings.
b If top growth is more than 12 inches before tillage credit
110–160 lb N/a.
Table 9.6. Field crop legume nitrogen credits.
Crop Medium/fine textured soils Sandy soils

lb N/a to credit
Soybean a 40 0
Leguminous vegetables 20 0
(pea; snap, lima, or dry bean)
a Soybean credit does not apply to corn grown after soybean. See
Chapter 6 Nitrogen for nitrogen rate guidelines for corn grown after
soybean.
10
Chapter — Starter fertilizers
U
se of relatively low fertilizer rates placed near
the seed at planting (starter fertilizer) is a
well-established and often profitable
practice for several crops commonly grown in
Wisconsin, especially for corn and potatoes. In
addition to enhancing yields, starter fertilizers
often increase early season plant growth and
sistent response to starter fertilizer across a wide
range of production conditions and geographic
locations indicates the importance of using N-P-K
starter fertilizers, especially in no-till or high
residue corn production systems. In addition, band
applications of fertilizers containing potassium
have been shown to partially offset corn yield
reductions caused by soil compaction.
development and may result in lower corn grain
moisture content at harvest. Rates and placement of starter fertilizers can influ-
ence their performance. Typical placements
Corn include with the seed at planting (pop-up) and 2-
by 2-inch band placement. Seed-placed starter
Factors affecting response rates must be limited to avoid seedling damage
to starter fertilizer and reduced plant populations. Nitrogen and
Mechanisms of crop response to starter fertilizers potassium rather than phosphorus are the rate
are not always clear, but several factors frequently limiting factors, and the N + K2O in the fertilizer
influence these responses including existing soil should not exceed 10 lb/a. Maximum application
fertility status (soil test level), rate, placement, com- rates for seed-and side-placed starter fertilizer are
position of the fertilizer, date of planting, soil com- shown in Table 10.1. In addition, fertilizers contain-
paction, and tillage. Where soil test levels are in the ing urea or ammonium thiosulfate should never be
responsive range, starter fertilizers usually increase used as the N source in starter fertilizers. Urea
yields because plants require more nutrients than breakdown in soil produces gaseous ammonia
the soil can supply. This response is likely regard- that inhibits germination and damages seedlings.
less of other management practices. At high soil
Application rates typically recommended for seed-
fertility levels, the response to starter, when it
placed starters may not maximize corn yield
occurs, is probably caused by a placement effect
response [Wolkowski and Kelling (1985); see also
that enhances early season plant growth or helps
Table 9-16 in Extension publication Management of
overcome limitations to nutrient uptake imposed
Wisconsin Soils (A3588)]. Corn response to 2- by 2-
by the management system. Broadcast applica-
inch side-placed starter on a high-P testing soil
tions of nutrients at similar rates are not likely to
was maximized with an application of about
duplicate this placement response. Although soil
10-20-20 (N-P2O5-K2O), and rates typically recom-
test phosphorus levels in major corn-producing
mended for seed-placed starters were inadequate
areas are often in the non-responsive range, results
to maximize response. This work also found that
from numerous studies indicate profitable
rates higher than 10-20-20 gave no additional
responses to various starter fertilizer treatments.
response and that no differences were detected
between liquid and dry fertilizer materials at
Starter composition, rates, and
similar nutrient application rates. Higher starter
placement
rates may be needed to optimize production
Most fertilizers used as starters contain nitrogen
where soil P and K tests are in the responsive
and phosphorus or nitrogen, phosphorus, and
range than where the tests are in the high cate-
potassium. While the influence of starter composi-
gories.
tion on crop response varies by geographic region,
numerous recent experiments with no-till corn in In environments, such as Wisconsin, where the
the Midwest have shown consistent, significant available growing period is not always adequate to
yield increases from application of complete (N-P- achieve the full crop yield potential, the early
K) starter fertilizers in a 2- by 2-inch placement acceleration of plant development from starter use
relative to the seed (Bundy et al., 2005). Frequently often translates into improved yield even at high
these responses occurred where soil test levels soil test levels. Wisconsin research (Bundy and
were in the optimum or high categories. This con- Andraski, 1999) shows that yield increases caused
CHAPTER
10
by starter use on soils with high P and K tests are to soil test results. Where soil test levels are in the
Starter fertilizers
likely if soil test K levels are less than 140 ppm excessively high range for potato, a minimal starter
and/or the combined effect of corn hybrid relative application of about 30-30-30 (N-P2O5-K2O) may
maturity (RM) and planting date result in an inade- be applied, and these nutrients must be counted
quate growth period for the crop to achieve its full against the total crop nutrient requirement.
yield potential. Results from numerous on-farm
studies with corn response to starter fertilizer in Soybean and snap bean
Wisconsin showed more frequent response to Starter fertilizer research with soybean and snap
starter with later planting dates and longer season bean generally indicates little or no advantage to
relative maturity (RM) hybrids. Table 10.2 shows banded fertilizer treatments relative to broadcast
the probabilities of response to starter fertilizer applications.
with various hybrid RM and planting date combi-
nations and illustrates the increasing probabilities
of economic response (value of yield increase
Accounting for nutrients in starter
exceeds starter cost) to starter fertilizer as planting fertilizers
dates become later. For all crops, all nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium) in starter fertilizers are counted
against the amounts of nutrients recommended
Potato based on the crop to be grown and soil test
For potatoes, starter fertilizer rates up to 800 lb/a
results.
of fertilizer material may be applied at planting if
these amounts of nutrients are required according
Table 10.1. Maximum recommended starter

fertilizer rates for corn.
Soil type
Placement Sands/ Medium- and
method loamy sands fine-textured
lb/a of fertilizer material
With seed (pop up) 50* 50*
Side placement (2” x 2”) 300 500
* Limit combined nitrogen plus potash (K2O) to 10 lb/a
Table 10.2. Probability of obtaining a positive economic return from starter fertilizer
for several corn relative maturity ratings at various planting dates on soils with exces-
sively high P and K levels. a
Relative Planting date

maturity 4/25 5/1 5/5 5/10 5/15 5/20 5/25 5/30
——————————— probability, % —————————————-
90 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
95 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
100 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
105 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
110 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
a This table does not alter current recommendations for early planting and selection of corn hybrids
with appropriate relative maturities for the production zone.
References
Research reports Sawyer, J., E. Nafziger, G. Randall, L. Bundy, G.
Rehm, and B. Joern. 2006. Concepts and
Andraski, T.W., and L.G. Bundy. 2002. Using the rationale for regional nitrogen rate guidelines
PSNT and organic N crediting to improve for corn. Publ. PM2015, Iowa State Univ.
corn nitrogen recommendations. Agron. J. Extension, Ames, IA.
94:1411–1418.
Wolkowski, R.P., and K.A. Kelling. 1985. Evaluation
Bundy, L.G., and T.W. Andraski. 1999. Site-specific of low-rate starter fertilizer applications for
factors affecting corn response to starter fer- corn production. J. Fert. Issues 2:1-4.
tilizer. J. Prod. Agric. 12:664–670.
Bundy, L.G., and T.W. Andraski. 2001. Evaluation

of nitrogen tests for site-specific N recom- Related publications
mendations for winter wheat. Proc. Wis. Fert. The following publications, available from
Aglime and Pest Mgmt. Conf. 40:350–368. Extension Publications, contain more information
about topics covered in this book. To order copies,
Bundy, L.G., and T.W. Andraski. 2004. Diagnostic visit http://learningstore.uwex.edu.
tests for site-specific nitrogen recommenda-
tions for winter wheat. Agron. J. 96:608–614. Guidelines for Applying Manure to Cropland and
Pasture in Wisconsin
Bundy, L.G., H. Tunney, and A.D. Halvorson. 2005.
Management of Wisconsin Soils (A3588)
Agronomic aspects of phosphorus manage-
ment. p. 685–727. In J.T. Sims and A.N. Sampling Soils for Testing (A2100)
Sharpley, (ed.) Phosphorus, agriculture and the Soil and Applied Sulfur (A2525)
environment. ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, WI.
Soil and Applied Calcium (A2523)
Davenport, J., C. DeMoranville, J. Hart, K. Patten, Soil and Applied Magnesium (A2524)
T. Planer, A. Poole, T. Roper, and J. Smith. 1995.
Cranberry tissue testing for producing beds in Soil Calcium to Magnesium Ratios—
North America. http://www.hort.wisc.edu/ Should You Be Concerned? (A2986)
cran/mgt_articles/articles_nutr_mgt/a3642.pdf Soil and Applied Boron (A2522)
Ehrhardt, P.D., and L.G. Bundy. 1995. Predicting Soil and Applied Manganese (A2526)
nitrate- nitrogen in the two- to three-foot Soil and Applied Zinc (A2528)
depth from nitrate measurements on shal-
Soil and Applied Copper (A2527)
lower samples. J. Prod. Agric. 8:429–432.
Soil and Applied Molybdenum (A3555)
Hart, J., J. Davenport, C. DeMoranville, and T.
Soil and Applied Iron (A3554)
Roper. 2000. Nitrogen for bearing cranberries
in North America. Bulletin EM8741. Oregon Soil and Applied Chlorine (A3556)
State University, Corvallis, OR. Recommended Methods of Manure Analysis (A3769)
Havlin, J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale, and W.L. Wisconsin’s Preplant Soil Nitrate Test (A3512)
Nelson. 1999. Soil fertility and fertilizers: An
introduction to nutrient management. 6th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Available from the University of Minnesota
Extension Store (http://shop.extension.umn.edu):
Roper, T., J. Davenport, C. DeMoranville, S.
Soil Cation Ratios for Crop Production
Marchand, A. Poole, J. Hart, and K. Patten.
(FO-06437-GO).
2005. Phosphorus for bearing cranberries in
North America. Dept. of Horticulture,
UW-Madison.
Fertilizer analysis
N P2O5 K2O other
Nitrogen
Ammonium nitrate 34 0 0
Ammonium sulfate (AMS) 21 0 0 24(S)
Ammonium thiosulfate (ATS) 12 0 0 26(S)
Anhydrous ammonia 82 0 0
Aqueous ammonia 20 0 0
Calcium nitrate (CN) 15 0 0 17(Ca)
Urea 46 0 0
28% Urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) 28 0 0
32% Urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) 32 0 0
Phosphorus
Ammonium polyphosphate (dry) 15 62 0
Ammonium polyphosphate (liquid) 10 34 0
Diammonium phosphate (DAP) 18 46 0
Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) 11 52 0
Triple superphosphate (TSP) 0 46 0
Potassium
Potassium chloride (muriate of potash) 0 0 60-62
Potassium-magnesium sulfate 0 0 22 22(S),11(Mg)
Potassium nitrate 13 0 44
Potassium sulfate 0 0 50 18(S)
Liquid weights:
1 gallon water weighs 8.3 lb
1 gallon UAN (28%) weighs 10.6 lb
1 gallon 10-34-0 weighs 11.6 lb
1 gallon 9-18-9 weighs 11.1 lb
Conversions
To get column 1, To get column 3,
1 divide column 3
by column 2 2 3 multiply column 1
by column 2
acre (a) 43,560 square feet (ft2)

acre (a) 0.405 hectare (ha)
square mile (mi2) 640 acres (a)
cubic yard (yd3) 27 cubic feet (ft3)
cubic feet (ft3) 7.48 gallons (gal)
bushel (bu) 1.244 cubic feet (ft3)
bushel (bu) 8 gallons - dry
bushel (bu) 9.31 gallons - liquid
ounces (oz) 29.6 milliliters (ml)
gallon (gal) 3.78 liters (l)
gallon (gal) 128 fluid ounces (fl oz)
gallon (gal) 4 quart (qt)
acre-foot 43,560 cubic feet (ft3)
acre-foot 325,851 gallons (gal)
chain (ch) 66 feet (ft)
chain (ch) 4 rods (r)
rods (r) 16.5 feet (ft)
mile (mi) 5,280 feet (ft)
ton (short) 2,000 pounds (lb)
ton (long) 2,230 pounds (lb)
gallons/acre (gal/a) 9.354 liters/hectare (l/ha)
miles/hour (mph) 88 feet/minute (ft/min)
pounds/acre (lb/a) 1.12 kilograms/hectare (kg/ha)
P2O5 (lb) 0.44 P (lb)
K2O (lb) 0.83 K (lb)
ppm-plow layer (6 in) 2 lb/acre (lb/a)
ppm-top soil (12 in) 4 lb/acre (lb/a)
Soil Test Rec:Layout 1 11/9/06 3:42 PM Page 56
Copyright © 2006 University of Wisconsin-System Board of Regents doing business as the division of
Cooperative Extension of the University of Wiscosnin-Extension. Send inquiries about copyright permission to:
Manager, Cooperative Extension Publications, 432 N. Lake St., Room 103, Madison, WI 53706.
Authors: Carrie Laboski is assistant professor of soil science, John Peters is director of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Soil Testing Labs in Madison and Marshfield, and Larry Bundy is professor of soil science.
All hold joint appointments with the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-
Madison and Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin-Extension. Produced by Cooperative Extension
Publications, University of Wisconsin-Extension.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of Keith Kelling, Emmett Schulte, and Leo Walsh, professors
emeriti of soil science, for their contributions to earlier versions. They also extend thanks to members of the
departments of soil science, agronomy, and horticulture for their input.
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and Wisconsin counties, publishes this information to further the purpose of the May 8 and June
30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and provides equal opportunities and affirmative action in employment and pro-
gramming. If you need this material in an alternative format, contact the Office of Equal Opportunity and
Diversity Programs or call Cooperative Extension Publications at (608) 262-2655.
This publication is available from your Wisconsin county Extension office or from Cooperative Extension
Publications. To order, call toll free 877-WIS-PUBS (877-947-7827) or visit learningstore.uwex.edu.
A2809 Nutrient Application Guidelines for Field, Vegetable, and Fruit Crops in Wisconsin R-11-2006-2.5M

Nutruent Application Guildlines For Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nutruent Application Guildlines For Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nutruent Application Guildlines For Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Test Rec:Layout 1 11/9/06 3:42 PM Page 55

Nutrient application guidelines

Lowering soil pH 27 Potato 67

Sampling fields for a single whole

Sampling soils for testing

Figure 2.1. Recommended W-shaped sampling

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Table 2.1. Recommended sample intensity for uniform fields.

Field size Suggested number

Figure 2.2. An example of an unaligned grid pattern

Sampling soils for testing

Sampling soils for testing

Soil test Procedures a

Soil test procedures

Table 3.2. Codes and descriptions of soil test interpretation categories.

Soil and crop information

PIERCE EAU CLAIRE SHAWANO DOOR

FOND DU LAC SHEBOYGAN

Soil OM Hues a Texture

Northern medium- and fine- northern and

X High pH soils b _ 10.0

Yield potential Sulfur in Yield potential Sulfur in

Adams 1 A,E 2 3 5 Marathon 37 D,E 3 2 5

Reporting Crop removal P and K

Reporting Crop removal P and K

Reporting Crop removal P and K

Table 4.4. Accepted corn and alfalfa yield levels

b An adjustment to compensate for inefficient field mixing

Soil pH and lime requirement

It is not recommended to apply more than 20 lb

Nitrogen:corn price ratio

Yield range Soil organic matter content (%)

Yield range Soil organic matter content (%)

Dry weight basis Sap basis

Crop PPNT results Nitrogen credit (lb N/a to credit)

Table 6.5. Nitrogen credits for the presidedress soil

Soil yield potential

Time of nitrogen application

Nutrient management planning

Soil test category

Very low Low

Phosphorus and potassium

Table 7.3. Phosphorus and potassium buffer

Soil group P buffer capacity K buffer capacity

Phosphorus and potassium

Phosphorus and the environment

P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

P2O5 rate guidelines K2O rate guidelines

Secondary and micronutrients

Sulfur availability index

Secondary and micronutrients

Crop Boron Copper Manganese Molybdenum Zinc Sulfur a

Secondary and micronutrients