COST 832

Minutes of the Technical Committee meeting of WG-1

Gembloux (B) – 23rd and 24th October 1998

 

 

Participants

 

Destain, J.P.

(Co-ordinator COST Action 832 - WG1, B),

Ehlert, P.A.I.

(WG-1, NL)

Hens*, M

(WG-2, B)

Isermann, K.

(WG-1, D)

Leinweber, P.

(WG-1, D)

Mentler, A.

(WG-1, AU)

Neyroud, J.A.

(WG-1, CH)

Schoumans*, O.F.

(Co-ordinator COST Action 832 - WG2, NL),

Withers, P.J.A.

(Chairman COST action 832, UK)

 

* Joint session of Technical committee of WG-1 and delegates of WG-2 on Saturday 24th October.

 

Objective of the meeting of the technical committee of WG-1

The aim of this meeting was to prepare the next meeting of WG- 1 based upon the key subjects and objectives of the first meeting of WG-1 in Antrim (Northern Ireland). Secondly, the purpose was to prepare the joint session of WG-1 and WG-2 meeting with delegates of WG-2 in Cordoba - Spain in May 1999.

 

Agenda 

  1. Soil P diagnosis

    1. Survey on the methods of soil testing for P

    2. Identification of gaps between agronomic soil P tests and environmental soil P tests

     

  2. P fertiliser recommendations and plant needs

    1. P testing agronomic needs/environmental targets

    2. Develop calibration methods for two targets

     

  3. Efficiency of fertiliser P

    1. Increase P efficiency

    2. Strategies

      

  4. Balance of P

    1. Methods

    2. Uncertainties on inputs and outputs

    3. How to balance

 

Many key subjects and objectives have been formulated during the first meeting of WG-1 in Antrim Northern Ireland. The time for the next meeting of WG-1 in Cordoba, Spain is too short to deal with all these topics. The Technical Committee restricted the number of topics. The next meeting of WG- 1 will be focused on current methods of soil testing for P for fertilisation purposes and for assessing the environmental risk of P by leaching and runoff. More in depth analyses of P losses and P balances and on the efficiency of P in animal feed, are key topics for other meetings of WG-1, which are scheduled in 2000/2001.

The activities of WG-1 have to result in tools and/or decision support systems for WG-2. TC has developed five activities. The minutes provide backgrounds, the aims and the nature of these activities are given in the annexes.

 

1. Soil P diagnosis

 

1.1. Survey of Soil P tests

Routine methods for establishing the fertiliser requirements for P of crops have been developed during the last 70-80 odd years. An overview of analytical methods of P soil tests for fertiliser recommendations has been given based upon the information of the meeting of WG-1 in Antrim, Northern Ireland, and additional information given later. The overview will be supplemented with an index of the literature. Some soil P tests are well documented, others aren’t. The participants of WG-1 are requested to provide information on missing soil P tests and their literature references.

 

1.2. Identification of gaps agronomic required and environmental acceptable fertilisation

In contrast to the soil P test for fertiliser recommendations the soil P test for establishing the risk for P leaching or P runoff are hardly implemented on routine scale. Very few methods have been developed and are used as such. However, a larger number of methods have been developed for establishing the risk of P leaching and/or runoff. An overview of all potential useful methods that have been designed for these purposes is lacking. Moreover, most of the methods used for assessing the need for P by the plant have no empirical or causal relations with methods for assessing the risk of P for the environment. Therefore, the TC decided on a survey on methods that actually are used and methods which are potential available. A second aim is to establish their relation with agronomic soil P test and on their use for defining phosphate saturation and/or defining the risk for surface runoff and the rating (interpretation) of the analytical results of these environmental soil P tests. Peter Leinweber will act as co-ordinator for collecting the information.

 

2. P fertiliser recommendations and plant needs

 

2.1. P testing agronomic needs in relation to environmental targets

Not only different methods are used but also different agronomic interpretations of the analytical results are present. A clear overview on the fertiliser recommendation systems in EU countries is lacking. A questionnaire will be developed by the TC to present a clear overview on the different fertiliser recommendation systems in the EU (Jean-Auguste Neyroud).

By means of a soil sample exchange the methods for determining the phosphate needs of crops and the methods for assessing the risk for the environment shall be compared. The current P soil tests for fertiliser recommendations are readily available. However, most of the methods for risk assessment are not designed for routine analyses and are therefore not readily available. A soil sample exchange between will be designed for evaluation of:

The protocol for the soil sample exchange will be developed after completion of the surveys. The institute of ISPRA in Italy will be contacted by Alex Mentler in order to define soils representative of different countries. Victor Houba of the Wageningen Agricultural University will be contacted by Phillip Ehlert on the protocol of sampling and preparing soils. The participants are requested to show their interest for participating in this soil sample exchange. To support this soil sample exchange a protocol will be developed. This protocol for the soil sample exchange will be finalised by a subcommittee of the TC after the next meeting of WG-1 in Cordoba.

 

2.2. Develop calibration methods for two targets

The question is whether it is possible to diagnose with one method the need for phosphorus for the crop as well as the risk for leaching and/or surface runoff. The outcome of the surveys will determine the further development of methods. Both stochastic (correlative) and conceptual models have been developed for predicting crop needs and the risk for the environment. These different approaches will be reviewed.

 

3. Efficiency of fertiliser P

 

3.1. Increase P efficiency

A major source for phosphorus rich and phosphorus-saturated soils are animal manures and sewage sludge. The perception of the value of phosphorus from these organic soil amendments for plant nutrition differs within the EU from country to country. To which extent the value differs is not clear. Field experiments – short and long term - on phosphorus fertilisation with mineral fertilisers and/or organic amendments provide basic information on the efficiency of phosphorus from these sources. The perception of the value of phosphorus from these organic soil amendments will be reviewed. For this, a survey on long term field trials will be conducted.

 

3.2. Strategies

Decision support systems have to be focused on sustainable agriculture. A too high loading of the soil should be prevented and soils which are already rich in P or even P saturated should minimise or even expel P inputs. However, it is not clear how long one can neglect fertilisation and after which period the phosphate status of the soil becomes critical for crop growth.

 

4. Balance of P

 

4.1-3. Methods, uncertainties of inputs and outputs, how to balance

An overview of the regions in the EU that are phosphate saturated and/or form a potential risk for the environment due to leaching or surface runoff is lacking. Although the TC acknowledges this lack of information, it will require too much effort before Cordoba to map these regions. Alternatively, a review on what has been done on mapping of phosphate saturated soils, on phosphate balances

On the balances of phosphorus a special meeting of WG-1 will be organised. As a kick of for that meeting an review on the different methods in order to calculate P excess are discussed on the basis of the information provided by K. Isermann. A review will be given on:

Based upon the discussions within the TC of WG-1 four basic questions have been formulated. To address these questions reviews and surveys have been formulated. Co-ordinators have been appointed.

 Question 1. Is it possible to unify decision on phosphorus inputs?

1. Review of agronomical soil P analyses (Phillip Ehlert)

2. Review of fertiliser recommendations systems (Jean-Auguste Neyround)

 

Question 2. How to identify the gap between agronomic required P according to Soil P test for fertiliser recommendations and Soil P test for determining the risk of P leaching and runoff?

3. Review on Soil P tests for assessment of environmental P loss (Peter Leinweber)

4. Review of data on long term field experiments (Jean-Pierre Destain)

 

Question 3. Gaps in our understanding of soil processes

5. Conceptual model of the fate of P input (…)

6. Soil – plant links (Axel Mentler)

 

Question 4: Decision support for minimum inputs for sound production?

 

7. Review of fertilisation models (Phillip Ehlert & Paul Withers)

8. P balances (N versus P), methods, scales and links between P surpluses and losses (Klaus Isermann)

 

In order to prepare the reviews and surveys the participants are requested to send the required information to the co-ordinators before the 15th of March. The annexes provide the details on the required information.

 

Annex 1. Review of agronomical soil P analyses (co-ordinator Phillip Ehlert)

 

The aim of the survey is to provide a clear overview on all soil tests for phosphate fertiliser recommendations. Based on the information given by the participants during the first meeting of WG-1 and on information send in later the following table can be given. The overview is nearly complete but information on them methods and the literature sources are still missing. The participants are requested to send missing information to Phillip Ehlert.

 

 

Phillip EHLERT

AB-DLO

PO Box 14

NL – 6700 AA Wageningen

Tel. +31.317 475810 _ Fax +31.317 4231100

Email p.a.i.ehlert@ab.dlo.nl

Annex 1, Methods of soil analyses for P used in European countries, continued

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Country P test Method (soil:solution ratio) Reference

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Austria CAL

1:20 (w/v) 0.05 M calcium lactate + 0.05 M calcium acetate + 0.3 M acetic acid,
pH 4.1, 2 h shaking

ÖNORM L 1087

DL

1:50 (w/v), 0.02 m calcium lactate + 0.02 M hydrochloric acid,
pH 3.7, 1 h shaking

ÖNORM L 1088

Water

1:20 (w/v) extraction with water

ÖNORM L 1092

Belgium AL

1:20 (w/v) with 0.1 M ammonium lactate + 0.2 M acetic acid,
pH 3.75, 2 h shaking

Egnér et al., 1960

 

EDTA-Ac

1:5 (w/v), 0.5 N ammonium acetate + 0.002 M EDTA,
pH 4.65, 0.5 h shaking

Cottenie et al., 1979

Denmark Olsen

1:20 (w/v), 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate,
pH 8.5, 30 minutes stirring

Olsen et al, 1954

Finland Morgan

1:10 (v/v), 0.5 M Ammonium acetate + 0.5 M acetic acid,
pH 4.65, 1 h shaking

Vuorinen & Mäkitie, 1955

Germany CAL

1:20 (w/v) 0.05 M calcium lactate + 0.05 M calcium acetate + 0.3 M acetic acid,
pH 4.1, 2 h shaking

Schüller, 1969

DL

1:50 (w/v), 0.02 m calcium lactate + 0.02 M hydrochloric acid, pH 3.7, 1 h shaking

Egnér and Riehm, 1955

Greece Bray-1

1:7 (w/v) 0.03 M ammonium fluoride + 0.0125 M HCl,
1 min shaking

Bray & Kurtz, 1945

 

Olsen

1:20 (w/v), 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate,
pH 8.5, 30 minutes stirring

Olsen et al, 1954

Hungary AL

1:20 (w/v) with 0.1 M ammonium lactate + 0.2 M acetic acid, pH 3.75, 2 h shaking

Egnér et al., 1960

Ireland Morgan

6.5:30 (v/v), acidified sodium acetate, pH 4.8., 0.5 h shaking

Morgan, 1994

Italy Bray-1

1:7 (w/v) 0.03 M ammonium fluoride + 0.0125 M HCl,
1 min shaking

Bray & Kurtz, 1945

Olsen

1 : 20 (w/v), 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate,
pH 8.5, 30 minutes stirring

Olsen et al, 1954

Netherlands Water

1:60 (v/v) with water at 20° C, 22 h incubation, 1 h shaking

Sissingh, 1971

Water

1:2 (v/v) water, 20 minutes shaking

Sonneveld et al., 1990

AL

1:20 (w/v) with 0.1 M ammonium lactate + 0.2 M acetic acid, pH 3.75, 2 h shaking

Egnér et al., 1960

CaCl2

1:10 (w/v) with 0.01 M calcium chloride, 2 h shaking

Houba et al, 1994

Norway AL

1:20 (w/v) with 0.1 M ammonium lactate + 0.2 M acetic acid,
pH 3.75, 1.5 h shaking

Egnér et al., 1960

Poland CaCl2

1:10 (w/v) with 0.01 M calcium chloride, 2 h shaking

Houba et al, 1994

DL

1:50 (w/v), 0.02 m calcium lactate + 0.02 M hydrochloric acid, pH 3.7, 1 h shaking

Egnér and Riehm, 1955

Olsen

1 : 20 (w/v), 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate, pH 8.5, 30 minutes stirring

Olsen et al, 1954

Romania AL

1:20 (w/v) 0.1 M ammonium lactate + 0.2 M acetic acid, pH 3.75, 2 h shaking

Egnér et al., 1960

MoCa

1:40 (w/v) 0.3% or 0.6% ammoniumhepta-Molybdate + 0.01 M calcium chloride, pH 4.3

Borlan et al, 1982

Spain Bray-1

1:7 (w/v) 0.03 M ammonium fluoride + 0.0125 M HCl, 1 min shaking

Bray & Kurtz, 1945

Olsen

1 : 20 (w/v), 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate, pH 8.5, 30 minutes stirring

Olsen et al, 1954

Sweden AL

1:20 (w/v) 0.1 M ammonium lactate + 0.2 M acetic acid, pH 3.75, 2 h shaking

Egnér et al., 1960

Switzerland AmAc

1:10 0.5 M ammonium acetate + 0.5 M acetic acid + 0.02 M EDTA, pH 4.65, 1 h shaking,

Modified after Cottenie et al, 1979

Water+CO2

1:2.5 (w/v) with CO2-enriched water, pH 3.5-4.0, 1 h shaking

Modified after Dirks & Scheffer1

Water

1:10 (w/v) or 1:2 (w/v) with water 1 h shaking

United Kingdom Olsen

1:20 (w/v), 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate,
pH 8.5, 30 minutes stirring

Olsen et al, 1954

Anion- Exchange

1:20 (w/v), 100 ml of water + 2.8 ml cation exchange resin (CER) + 4.0 ml anion exchange resin (AER), 16 h shaking; extraction with 1M ammoniumchloride, pH 2.0, 30 minutes shaking

Somasiri & Edwards, 1992

1 Information requested

Literature

Borlan, Z., Hera, Cr, et. al., 1982. Opredelenie podvijnîh fosfatov, ekstraghiruiemîh molibdatom ammonia i hloristîm kaltiem-MoCa în: Agrohimiceskie metodî issledovanai fosfatnogo rejijma pociv. Sbornik metodov. Acad. S.H. Nauk G.D.R. Instit. Pitaina Rast. Jena; 45-48.

Bray, R.H., & Kurtz, L.T., 1945. Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59: 39-45.

Byrne, e., 1979. Chemical analysis of agricultural materials. Methods used at Johnston Castle Research Centre Wexford. An Foras Taluntais, 59.pp.

Cottenie, A., 1979. Workshop on the standardisation of analytical methods for manure, soils, plant and water. C.E.E. Agricultural series, EUR 6369 EN. 57. pp.

Dirks & Scheffer ?

Egnér and Riehm, 1955. Die Doppellaktatmethde. In: Thon, R., Hermann, R., & Knikemann, E., (Eds.). Die Untersuchung von Boden Verbandes deutscher Landweritschaftlicher Untersuchungs und Forschungsanstalten, Methodenbuch I. Neumann Verlag, radebeul and Berlin. Based on: Egenér, H., (1932). Meddelande report No. 425 Från Centralanstalten for Forsoksvasendet poa jordbrukssomrao det, Avdelnignen Forlantbrukschemie, Stockholm, Nr. 51.

Egnér, H., Riem, H., and Domingo, W.R., 1960. Untersuchungen über die chemischen Bodenanalyse als Grundlage für die Beurteilung des Nahrstoffzustandes der Bödem. II. Chemische Extractionsmethoden zur Phosphor- und Kaliumbestimmung. Kungliga Lantbrukhögskolans Annaler 26: 199-215

Houba, F.J.G., Novozamsky, I., Lexmond, T.M. & Lee, J.J. van der, 1990. Applicability of 0.01 M CaCl2 as a single extraction solution for the assessment of the nutrient status of soils and other diagnostic purposes. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 21 (19/2): 2281-2291.

Morgan, M.F., 1941. Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system. Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 450, Connecticut, USA.

Olsen, S.R., Cole, V.R., Watanabe, F.S., Dean,. L.A., 1954. Estimating available phosphorus by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. United States Department of Agriculture, Circular No. 939.

ÖNORM L 1087. Chemical analysis of soils. Determination of plant-available phosphate and potassium by calcium-acetate-lactate-(CAL)-method.

ÖNORM L 1088. Chemical analysis of soils – Determination of plant-available phosphate and potassium by calcium-lactate-hydrochloric-acid-method (DL-method).

ÖNORM L 1092. Chemical analysis of soils – Determination of water soluble substances.

Schachtschabel, P., 1973… Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 135. 31-45.

Schüller, 1969. Die Cal Methode. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 123: 48-63

Sissingh, H.A., 1971. Analytical technique of the Pw method, used for the assessment of phosphate status of arable land in the Netherlands. Plant and Soil 34: 483-486

Somasire, L.L., W., Birnie, A. & Edwards, A.C., 1991. Inductiviely Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectormetry for the analysis of sil extracts prepared on ion-exchange resins. Analyst, 116, 601-603

Somasire, L.L.W., & Edwards, A.C., 1992. An ion exchange resin method for nutrient extraction of agricultural advisory soil samples. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 23 (7&8): 645-657.

Sonneveld, C., Ende, J. van den, and Bes, S.S., 1990. Estimating the chemical compositions of soil solutions by obtaining soil saturation extracts or specific 1:2 volume extracts. Plant and Soil, 122: 169-175.

Vuorinen & Mäkitie, 1955. The method of soil testing in use in Finland. Agrogeological Publications 63: 1-44.

  

Annex 2. Review on Soil P tests for assessment of environmental P loss (co-ordinator Peter Leinweber)

 

The aims of the survey are

 

For these purpose the following information is required. Participants are requested to send information to Peter Leinweber.

 

Peter LEINWEBER
Fachbereich Agrarökologie
Inst. für Bodenkunde
Justus von Liebigweg 6
D - 18059 Rostock
Tel. +49.381 498 2088 _ Fax +49.381 498 2159
Email leinweb@agr.uni-rostock.de

 

 

Requested information

 

 

Annex 3. Inventory of method selection criteria and overview on interpretation schemes

 

 

 

Introduction

 

At his last Gembloux meeting (23-24 October 98), the technical committee of WG 1 completed the list of methods for P-analysis of bioavailability used by the participating countries. As was already clear at the Antrim meeting, there is presently no intention of unifying these methods, for several well-known reasons. Each method will be completed with its exact literature reference. In addition to that, the detailed procedure for each method can be obtained from each participating country through its COST 832 representatives.

 

A list of common routine methods is only a first step. We very much would like to collect further information about the method selection criteria, their scope of utilization, the results obtained and the use, which is made of them. This could be archived by filling the annexed questionnaire.

 

Aim of the questionnaire, mode of filling it

 

We need additional information on:

 

 

Your answers will help us shedding some light on the strategies of P-fertilization based on soil analysis throughout Europe. A rapid return of the questionnaire will be greatly appreciated in view of a presentation of the results at our next meeting (May 99).

 

The questionnaire is accompanied by an instruction sheet, which should facilitate your work as well as our future evaluation job.

 

Please fill as many forms as important distinct routine procedures are used in your country. Add also as many short complementary notes as needed on separate sheets.

 

N.B.: Our questionnaire covers only soil-P bioavailability routine methods, other topics, e.g. fundamental research, P-saturation... will be dealt with in separate actions.

 

 

 

With our best regards,

 

Jean-Auguste Neyroud

 

Address for return:

 

Jean-Auguste NEYROUD

Station federale de recherches en production vegetale de Changins

CH-1260 Nyon

Tel. +41 22 363 43 18 _ Fax +41 362 13 25

Email jean-auguste.neyroud@rac.admin.ch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CH-Nyon, December 1998

 

Annex 3. Inventory of method selection criteria and overview on interpretation schemes, continued

 

COST 832 Instruction for the method selection questionnaire

 

 

Method

Use the abbreviation of the Antrim list of methods.

 

Number of distinct methods

If more than 1 method is used in a country, please photocopy the questionnaire and send back as many forms as distinct usual routine procedures. This number should be restricted to the most common and economically important procedures, especially bearing the objectives of COST 832 in mind.

If one same method is used under different conditions (soils types, sampling,...) and the analytical result interpreted in different ways, file in additional questionnaires.

 

1 and 2, suitability

We want to know precisely under what conditions the method is applied, respectively is not applied. For glasshouse cultures, we restrict the scope to soil, peat and compost-based substrates.

 

3 range of soil properties

Complete the list, if needed. For organic C, translate humus content into organic C. "other" properties can be mentioned if later used in the interpretation.

 

7

The old question is : do we fertilize the crop or the soil ? We would like to know which countries have systems focused on the crop, on the soil or on both.

 

1 to 7

Your answers may help to set a typology of the different methods. Translated into bad English, the question is "what method gives what result under what conditions ?" (!!)

 

8 to 10

This has pure informative purpose, as we assume that differences between countries should be reasonably small.

 

11, scope

It may not be possible to concentrate the information in a few questions. Please add complementary notes on a separate sheet, if you think it necessary.

 

We would be grateful if you could send this file back as soon as possible, due to the necessary compilation time required for a proper presentation.

Using E-mail and the text processing system WORD 7.0 or WORDPERFECT will be appreciated.

 

 

With our best regards,

 

 

Address for return:

Jean-Auguste NEYROUD

Station federale de recherches en production vegetale de Changins

CH-1260 Nyon

Tel. +41 22 363 43 18 _ Fax +41 362 13 25

Email jean-auguste.neyroud@rac.admin.ch CH-Nyon, December 1998

 

Annex 3. Inventory of method selection criteria and overview on interpretation schemes, continued

 

Questionnaire for soil-P method selection

 

Country Method

Number of distinct methods described by the country

 

 
  1. The method is suitable for the following types of cultures :

Agriculture ¨

Fruit tree ¨

Vineyard ¨

vegetable (outdoor) ¨

Other :....... ¨

Pasture ¨

Forest ¨

Nature ¨

Greenhouse (only ¨

on soil, peat on compost)
  • The method is suitable for the following types of soils :

    • All soils ¨

    Acid soils ¨

    Neutral soils ¨

    Alkaline soils ¨

    Organic soils ¨

    Greenhouse, ¨

    soil bound

    Greenhouse, ¨

    substrate bound
    1. The method cannot be used under the following conditions :

     

     
    1. The method is used on soils with following general properties :

     

    pH

    calcium carbonate

    organic C

    clay %

    classes of P-content

    other :.......

    range

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    most common

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  • How far is the water table or the water content taken into account for the interpretation ?

    •  
    • What other nutrients /heavy metals can be analyzed together with phosphorus on the same extract ?
    • Do you need the free CaCO3 content in the interpretation ?
    • Same question for silt content :

     
    1. Are subsoil samples analyzed together with the surface horizon:

     
  • What is the main purpose of the analysis :

    • Fertilization especially focused on the crop ¨

    Fertilization especially focused on the soil ¨

    Possible use for environmental purpose, risk assessment ¨

    Environmental concern, advice ¨

    Possible use for environmental monitoring ¨

    Other :...... ¨

     

     

     
    1. Sampling :
    • Advised season for sampling

     
    • Max. plot size sampled for fertilization recommendation purpose

     

     

     
    • Are specific areas excluded from sampling, why?

     

     
    • Number of cores for representation sample

     
    • Sampling procedure (random, systematic...)

     

     

     
    • Depth of sampling

     
    • Number of sampled horizons

     
    • How is the sample location defined?

     

    • Other…

    1. Sample processing :
    • Analysis on fresh or air-dry sample?

     
    • If air-dry, drying conditions :

     
    • Sieving conditions :

     
    • Other: ...

     

     
    1. Storage :
    • Fresh samples : time delay until analysis

     
    • Dry samples : storage conditions

     

     
    1. Scope :
    • Describe in a few words why the method has been selected in your country

     

     
    • Is the method currently used in combination with other P-analyses,
    • if YES why ?

     

     
    • Describe in a few words the advantages/inconvenient of the method from the standpoint of a routine laboratory

     

     
    • What percentage of the actual culture surfaces is actually regularly analyzed with the method?

     
    • What quality control actions are running

     

     
    • Other: ...

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
    1. Calibration :
    • Are the fertilizer recommendations based on short - or long - term field trials?

     
    • Which is the major crop on which the fertilizer recommendation is calibrated?

     
    • Is the recommended rate of fertilizer based on a statistical, conceptual or pragmatic approach? Please comment in short hand.

     

     
    1. Interpretation :
    • Do you also recommend fertilizer types?

     
    • Is your recommendation valid for :
    • water soluble fertilizers
    • water in soluble fertilizers
    • organic fertilizers

     
    • In what cases do you specifically recommend :
    • water soluble fertilizers
    • water in soluble fertilizers
    • organic fertilizers

     
    • What percentage of the total P of the fertilizer do you consider bio-available in :
    • water insoluble fertilizers
    • organic fertilizers

     
    • Is the recommendation bases on broadcasting of in fertilizer

     
    • Is fertilizer placement taken into account

     
    • If so, how is placement taken into account?

     
    • What is the usual period for applying phosphate fertilizer?

     
    • Is each crop fertilized with P, or only the most responding crop (rotation fertilization)?

     

     

     

    PLEASE JOIN A COPY OF YOUR NATIONAL (REGIONAL) INTERPRETATION SCHEMES

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    CH-Nyon, December 1998

     

     

     

    Annex 4. Survey on current project on the topic and key subjects of WG-1 (co-ordinator Phillip Ehlert)

     

     

    Aim is to provide a list on current projects on topics and key subjects of WG-1. Participants are requested to provide information on their current projects on these topics and key subjects. Requested information are:

     

    The participants are requested to send their information to Phillip Ehlert. The topics and key subjects are:

     

    Topic 1. Soil-P diagnosis

     

    Key subjects:

    1. Analytical methods of determination of plant-available P and means for standardisation and comparison.
    2. Analytical methods for soil-P to establish the risk for the environment of P inputs.
    3. Soil sampling methods and sampling schemes.
    4. Soil sample exchange of standard soil samples to identify differences between P fertiliser recommendations and to identify gaps between agronomically required and environmentally acceptable P inputs and P outputs.
    5. Identify European areas were soils are P-saturated.

     

    Topic 2. P fertiliser recommendations and plant needs

     

    Key subjects:

    1. Fertiliser recommendation schemes in European countries;
    2. Conceptual approach of soil-P test;
    3. Concepts of calibration of P fertiliser recommendations in relation to the agricultural systems;
    4. System analysis to increase the bioavailability of soil P (alley cropping)

     

     

     

    Topic 3. Efficiency of fertiliser P (including organic manure P) and feed recommendations

     

    Key subjects:

    1. Efficiency of mineral P fertilisers and P from manure’s and organic soil amendments.
    2. Methods for increasing P efficiency from different P sources.
    3. Relationships of P with other nutrients (N).

     

    Topic 4. Balance of P

     

    1. Key subjects:
    2. Methods for determining P balance sheets (Parkon model, surface balance approach partial or complete balance sheets).
    3. P soil tests and their relation to P balance sheets.
    4. P balance sheets and their scales (field, farm, region, country).

     

     

    Address for return:

     

    Phillip EHLERT

    AB-DLO

    PO Box 14

    NL – 6700 AA Wageningen

    Tel. +31.317 475810 _ Fax +31.317 4231100

    Email p.a.i.ehlert@ab.dlo.nl

     

     

     

    Annex 5. Review of data on short and long term field experiments (co-ordinator Jean-Pierre Destain)

     

     

    Aim is to collect basic information on the efficiency of phosphorus of mineral fertilisers and of organic soil amendments.

     

    Information needed:

     

    Date of start of the experiment:

    Date of the end of the experiment:

    Type of soil :

    Crops investigated year/year :

    Levels of P inputs (year/year) :

    Yields (year per year) :

    Levels of inputs year/year: mineral P and P from organic soil amendments:

    Levels of P outputs (P removed by the harvested crop) (year/year : if available) :

    Agricultural balance of soil : P inputs - P outputs (year per year and on the all period if available) :

     

    P status of the soil

    - Soil P test (method - sampling depth - period of the year)

    - Level at start of the experiment (appreciation with the normal status)

    - Evolution of this level

    - Assessment of risk of P saturation : if available

     

    Comparison between agricultural balance/analytical balance of the soil (if available).

     

    Address for return:

     

    Jean-Pierre DESTAIN

    Centre de Recherches Agronomiques

    Station de chimie et de physique agricole

    Chaussée de Wavre 115

    B - 5030 Gembloux

    Tel. +32.81 61 10 40 _ Fax +32.81 61 19 17

    Email chimie@cragx.fgov.be

     

     

     

    Annex 6. A list of models on P fertilisation (co-ordinator Phillip Ehlert)

     

    Aim is to collect all available information on empirical (stochastic) and conceptual (mechanistic) models which have been developed or are being developed.

     

    Requested information:

     

     

    Address for return:

     

    Phillip EHLERT

    AB-DLO

    PO Box 14

    NL – 6700 AA Wageningen

    Tel. +31.317 475810 _ Fax +31.317 4231100

    Email p.a.i.ehlert@ab.dlo.nl

     

     

     

    The Mail Box of WG-1

     

    Since the first meeting of WG-1 in Antrim, Northern Ireland, participants have provide additional information. The Mail Box of WG-1 provides a list on this additional information.

     

    Roberto Indiati, Istituto Sperimentale per la Nutrizione delle Piante, Roma, Italy.

     

    Klaus Isermann, Bureau for Sustainable Agriculture, Hanhofen, Germany.

     

    Tore Krogstad, Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Soil and Water Sciences.

     

    Katri Siimes, Agricultural Research Centre of Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioninen.

     

    Ken Smith, ADAS, Woodthorn, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton WV6 8TQ.

     

    Heide Spiegel. Bundesamt und Forschungszentrum für Landwirtschaft, Wien, Austria:

     

    Tommi Peltovuori (1) & Katri Siimes (2)

    (1) Department of Applied Chemistry and Microbiology, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, (2) Agricultural Research Centre of Finland, FIN-31600 Jokioninen

    (2)