Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T06:15:40.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The productivity of five grass species at six levels of compound fertilizer application I. Dry-matter production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. L. Henderson ,
R. S. Edwards  and
J. L. Hammerton
J. L. Henderson
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
R. S. Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
J. L. Hammerton
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Data on the dry-matter production of five grass species (each sown with white clover), over the period 1954–56, at six levels of compound fertilizer application, are reported. Perennial ryegrass (S. 101), meadow fescue (S. 215), timothy (S. 48), cocksfoot (S. 26) and bent (N.Z. browntop) were sown in 1953 at appropriate seed rates, each with 2 lb. per acre S. 100 white clover. The fertilizer treatments were 0, 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 cwt. per acre of a compound of composition 10% N, 4% P2O5 and 9·5% K2O, applied in the early spring of each of the years 1954–56. The swards were cut three times a year in 1954 and 1956, but only two cuts were possible in 1955.

2. The timothy mixture gave the highest total production of dry-matter over the 3 years, the bent and perennial rye-grass mixtures giving the lowest total productions. Differences between mixtures in annual yield varied in sign and in magnitude from year to year. For example, bent gave the lowest yield in 1954, but outyielded the meadow fescue and the cocksfoot mixtures in 1955, and the perennial rye-grass mixture in 1956. As regards the distribution of dry-matter production over the season, it was found that bent differed from the other mixtures in that a higher proportion of its annual yield was produced at the second and third cuts.

3. There were significant linear relationships of dry-matter yield to fertilizer application rate in most of the data. On average over the 3 years, 1·6 cwt. of dry-matter were produced for each cwt. of spring applied fertilizer in the first cut, 0·7 cwt. per cwt. of fertilizer in the second cut, while very small and non-significant responses were found in the third cut. There was no evidence of systematic differences between grass mixtures in response to fertilizer level.

4. The yield of clover dry-matter in 1956 (the third harvest year) was least from the cocksfoot and timothy swards, and was significantly and linearly depressed by fertilizer application in all three cuts.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1962 , pp. 5 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, G. H. (1948). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 3, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duell, B. W. (1960). Agron. J. 52, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, I. V. (1958). Res. Bull. W. Scot. Coll. Agric. no. 22.Google Scholar
Ivins, J. D. & Fernando, G. W. E. (1955). Agriculture, 61, 549.Google Scholar
Ødelien, M. (1950). Forskn. Fors. Landbr. 1, 347 (Herb. Abs. 1952, 22, 74).Google Scholar
Pollitt, R. (1947). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 2, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reith, J. W. S., Inkson, R. H. E., Stewart, A. B., Holmes, W., Maclusky, D. S., Reid, D., Heddle, R. G., Clouston, D. & Copeman, G. J. F. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, P. (1956). Forskn. Fors. Landbr. 7, 129 (Herb. Abs. 1957, 27, 42).Google Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. & Davies, W. (1948). Ley Farming. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Walker, T. W., Edwards, G. H. A., Cavell, A. J. & Rose, T. H. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, T. W., Adams, A. F. R. & Orchiston, H. D. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. & Lloyd, J. R. (1952). N.A.A.S. Quart. Rev. 5, 271.Google Scholar