Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T17:26:48.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fertilizer value of some concentrated materials, particularly urea and guanidine and their nitrates and phosphates1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. H. Lewis
A. H. Lewis
Affiliation:
Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., Jealott's Hill Research Station, Bracknell, Berks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A survey of the fertilizer value of certain highly concentrated N and NP materials, particularly salts of urea and of guanidine, which might be used as fertilizers, has been made. The evidence in the literature indicates that whilst guanidine carbonate and nitrate, especially the latter, may under certain conditions be toxic to the growth of certainc plants, under other conditions these guanidine salts have considerable fertilizer value which is, however, less than that of ammonium sulphate. Urea nitrate appears to have about the same value as guanidine nitrate. No reference to experiments with guanidine or urea phosphates could be found. Pot culture experiments were conducted with barley and mustard in acid and neutral soils to study the effects of ammonium, urea and guanidine salts, including their nitrates and phosphates, and of two extremely concentrated materials, phospham (PN2H) and phosphorus nitride (P3N5). The rate of nitrification of ammonium, urea and guanidine nitrogen were also studied in the laboratory.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1936 , pp. 509 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

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

(1)Bartholomew, H. P. & Jacob, K. D. (1933). J. Ass. Off. agric. Chem., Wash., 16, 598.Google Scholar
(2)Sinclair, K. J. Paper in course of preparation for publication.Google Scholar
(3)Münter, F. & Schneidewind, W. (1923). Arb. dtsch. LandwGes. No. 324.Google Scholar
(4)Haselhoff, H., Liehr, C. & Fluhrer, K. (1922). Landw. VersSta. 100, 37.Google Scholar
(5)Hutchinson, H. B. & Miller, N. H. J. (1911–12). J. agric. Sci. 4, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Schreiner, O. & Skinner, E. J. (1912). Bull. U.S. Div. Soils, 87, 58.Google Scholar
(7)Wagner, P. (1914). Mitt, dtsch. LandwGes. 29, 417.Google Scholar
(8)Hiltner, L. (1915). Prakt. Pflanzanbau Schertz. 13, 141.Google Scholar
(9)Kappen, H. (1915). Landw. Verssta. 86, 115.Google Scholar
(10)Haselhoff, E. (1914). Landw. Verssta. 84, 1.Google Scholar
(11)Rothamsted Experimental Station Report (1918–20), p. 79.Google Scholar
(12)Crowther, E. M. & Brenchley, W. E. (1934). J. agric. Sci. 24, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Olsen, C. (1929). C.R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, 17, No. 15.Google Scholar
(14)Funchess, M. J. (1917). Bull. Ala. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 196, p. 65.Google Scholar
(15)Eggleton, W. G. E. (1935). Ann. appl. Biol. 22, 419.Google Scholar
(16)Cooper, H. P. & Wilson, J. K. (1930). Soil Sci. 30, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar