Spent Lime Rate Effects on Sugarbeet Yield and Quality (2004),

Wheat and Soybean (2005)

Larry J. Smith, Head; Todd E. Cymbaluk and Jeffrey D. Nielsen, Assistant Scientists;

Northwest Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota

Crookston, MN 56716

Interest in spent lime (from the processing of sugarbeet) has increased in recent years in the Red River Valley. Two factors for the interest relate to reduced Aphanomyces cochloides and the nutrient value as it relates to "sand syndrome" and other nutrient replacement from crop removal.

In 2004, five rates of spent lime from the ACSC Crookston plant were applied and sugarbeet grown. In the following years, other crops in the sugarbeet rotation will be planted to determine beneficial or detrimental effects of spent lime application.

Materials and Methods

On May 10, 2004, spent lime rates of 0, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 15.0 ton dry matter (TDM) per acre were applied to two series of plots in a randomized block design. One series of plots received no additional nitrogen (69 lb/A 0-4ft) and the other was brought up to the recommended nitrogen level (130 lb/A). Both series of plots received 70 lb/A P205. Beta 3820 sugarbeet seed was planted in 22-inch rows on May 24. Plots were six rows wide and 35 ft in length. Plants were thinned to uniform populations of 35,600 plants per acre on June 22. All other cultural practices were applied to ensure maximum yield and quality. The trial was machine harvested on September 28 and quality determined at the ACSC Quality Laboratory, East Grand Forks, MN. In mid-October all plots in the trial were soil sampled to a depth of 0-6 and 6-24 inches and a complete soil analysis run.

In 2005, the sugarbeet series receiving the recommended rate of N (130 lb/A) was planted to Knutson wheat on May 6, 2005. Eighty five pounds of N was applied pre-plant as urea. No phosphorus fertilizer was applied. Weed control consisting of Bronate (0.8 pt/A) and Puma (0.5 pt/A) was applied on May 31. Folicur fungicide was applied on June 23 for disease control. The wheat was harvested on August 23 and yield, test weight and protein content determined.

On the series receiving no additional N in 2004, two varieties of soybean differing in susceptibility to iron chlorosis were planted in 22-inch rows on May 17, 2005. The soybean varieties were Gold Country 923RR and Garst 0211RR with the Garst variety supposedly being more chlorosis susceptible than the Gold County variety. Round-up herbicide was applied for weed control on June 20. The trial was harvested on September 29 and yield, protein and oil content determined.

In mid-October, all plots were again soil sampled to determine residual nutrients.

Results - 2004

The chemical analysis of the spent lime used in the trial is shown in Table 1. The analysis of variance for the trial is shown in Table 2. Nitrogen was the only treatment to influence the variables measured (Table 3). The increase in RSA and gross return are the result of an increase in yield (2.3 T/A).

The main effects of the lime treatments (ave over nitrogen rate) is shown in Table 4. The different rates of lime application had no effects on yield, quality or gross return.

The soil analysis of the plots after sugarbeet harvest with the various treatments at the 0-6 inch and 6-24 inch soil depth is shown in Tables 5 & 6. The most noticeable feature is the significant increase in P level with the addition of the lime. The no lime treatment at both N levels had a mean P level of 9 ppm. At the 15.0 TDM treatment, the P level increased to a mean of 18.8 ppm. No significant change in soil pH was noted between the zero and 15.0 TDM lime treatments.

There were no differences in stand establishment between lime treatments.

Discussion 2004

According to the analysis of the lime used in this trial, there was 16.5, 33.0, 66.0, and 99.0 lb of N in the 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 15.0 TDM lime rates applied. Phosphorus wise, the lime contained 19, 38, 76, and 114 lbs respectively.

Because the trial already had 70 lb/A P205 applied before the lime treatments were applied, no phosphorus response was expected. Conversely with N, one would have expected a response based on the chemical analysis of the % N in the lime and the two N regimes chosen on yield and quality (Table 7). None occurred and no increase in soil residual N (0-24 inches) was observed in the soil after sugarbeet harvest.

The question then is "Where Is It?"

Results - 2005

The response of Knutson spring wheat to the various levels of spent lime applied in 2004 is shown in Table 8. No differences in yield, test weight, or protein content occurred between the various lime levels.

The two soybean varieties gave similar response across the lime levels (Tables 9 & 11). Lime rates, however, had significant effects on yield, oil and protein (Table 10). The 2.5 and 5.0 TDM/A rates had significantly higher yield than the check, 10.0 and 15.0 TDM lime rates, however, there was no significant difference between these three rates. The 2.5 and 5.0 TDM/A also had significantly higher protein than the check.

Soil phosphorus (P) level following wheat and soybeans compared to the 2004 levels at the various lime and nitrogen rates is shown in Table 12. While P levels are somewhat variable, there is still a trend to higher soil levels at the higher lime rates, even after the yields of wheat and soybean that were obtained in 2005.

Discussion - 2005

The lime treatments receiving wheat in 2005 had an average of 15 lb/A NO3-N in the top 24 inches after sugarbeet in 2004. With the added 85 lb/A N, spring applied, it was anticipated that any of the nitrogen not recovered in the sugarbeet crop from the various lime rates may show up in increased yield and protein. This did not happen and we are still looking for the 99 lb/A of N that was applied with the 15.0 TDM spent lime application in 2004.

It was anticipated that the 10.0 and 15.0 TDM spent lime rates applied in 2004 may have deleterious affects on soybean yield and chlorosis. While mild chlorosis occurred at these rates early in the growing season, no chlorosis was visible in early August. Why the 2.5 and 5.0 TDM lime rates increased yield and protein as compared to the check is unknown.

Table 1.	Chemical analysis of spent lime on a dry matter basis

Percent Moisture - 27.2% Percent Dry Matter - 72.8%

Nutrient (%)	Nutrient (ppm)
Nitrogen 0.33	Zinc 36
Phosphorus 0.38	Iron 1492
Potassium 0.01	Manganese 126
Sulfur 1.00	Copper 12
Calcium 18.00	Boron 12
Magnesium 1.00
Sodium 0.002

Table 2.	ANOVA1

Source	RSA

(lb/A)	RST

(lb/T)	Yield

(T/A)	Sugar

(%)	LTM

(%)	Gross Return2

($/A)
Nitrogen Rate (NR)	***	NS	***	NS	NS	***
Lime	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
NR x Lime	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
1. NS, *, **, *** represent nonsignificant and significant levels of 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.

2. Basis - ACSC November 15, 2004 -payment.

Table 3.	Main effects of nitrogen rate (ave over lime rates) on sugarbeet yield, quality and return, 2004

Nitrogen rate

(lb/A[0-4 ft])	RSA

(lb/A)	RST

(lb/T)	Yield

(T/A)	Sugar

(%)	LTM

(%)	Gross Return

($/A)
69	5805	296.4	20.1	15.56	1.11	607
130	6633	289.0	22.4	15.85	1.03	714
Stat. Sign.	***	NS	***	NS	NS	***

Table 4.	Main effects of lime (ave over nitrogen rate) on sugarbeet yield, quality and return, 2004

Lime (TDM/A)	RSA

(lb/A)	RST

(lb/T)	Yield

(T/A)	Sugar

(%)	LTM

(%)	Gross Return

($/A)
0	6238	293.2	21.3	15.69	1.03	663
2.5	6320	296.5	21.3	15.90	1.07	681
5.0	6249	290.7	21.5	15.62	1.08	659
10.0	6146	293.2	20.9	15.72	1.07	654
15.0	6143	290.0	21.2	15.62	1.11	655
Stat. Sign.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Table 7.	The effect of spent lime on sugarbeet yield, quality and return at the two nitrogen rates used in 2004

Spent Lime

(TDM/A)	N Level

(lb/A - 0-4 ft)	RSA

(lb/A)	RST

(lb/T)	Yield

(T/A)	Sugar

(%)	LTM

(%)	Gross Return

($/A)
0	69	5944	291.8	20.4	15.62	1.03	627
2.5	69	5880	294.9	19.9	15.84	1.10	630
5.0	69	5788	283.5	20.4	15.31	1.13	592
10.0	69	5540	285.7	19.4	15.45	1.16	571
15.0	69	5875	289.1	20.4	15.59	1.13	614
Stat. Sign.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
0	130	6531	294.6	22.2	15.76	1.03	698
2.5	130	6760	298.2	22.7	15.94	1.03	731
5.0	130	6710	297.9	22.5	15.93	1.03	726
10.0	130	6751	300.7	22.4	16.00	0.97	737
15.0	130	6411	290.9	22.1	15.64	1.10	675
Stat. Sign.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Table 5.	Soil analysis following sugarbeets receiving no applied N in 2004 and different spent lime rates

Depth

N

appl

Lime

T/A	Nitrate N

lb/A

P

ppm

K

ppm

Cl

lb/A

S

lb/A

B

ppm

Zn

ppm

Fe

ppm

Mn

ppm

Cu

ppm

Mg

ppm
0-6	0	0	7.7	8.7	119.0	3.7	17.3	2.0	0.53	7.6	4.7	0.54	928
0-6	0	2.5	7.7	11.0	130.7	4.0	12.7	1.9	0.64	8.0	4.8	0.57	850
0-6	0	5	6.3	12.7	132.3	6.0	18.7	2.0	0.60	8.1	4.6	0.57	930
0-6	0	10	5.3	13.0	121.0	2.7	16.0	1.9	0.62	8.1	4.8	0.56	873
0-6	0	15	7.0	19.3	126.3	5.0	36.7	1.9	0.65	10.1	4.9	0.59	936
LSD.05	NS	2.81	NS	NS	13.3	NS	0.071	0.70	NS	NS	NS
6-24	0	0	11.0	3.0	76.0	6.0	48.0	1.3	0.30	9.4	1.7	0.60	1028
6-24	0	2.5	26.0	3.3	94.7	10.0	84.0	1.4	0.42	10.0	2.0	0.55	1036
6-24	0	5	10.0	3.7	91.7	6.0	82.0	1.3	0.37	9.9	2.0	0.59	1049
6-24	0	10	8.0	3.3	88.3	3.0	74.0	1.1	0.36	10.3	1.8	0.56	910
6-24	0	15	16.0	4.7	98.7	9.0	116.0	1.4	0.42	9.7	2.1	0.56	994
LSD05	14.8	0.8	22.6	NS	NS	NS	0.105	NS	0.37	NS	NS

Depth

N

Appl

Lime

T/A

Ca

ppm

NA

ppm

OM

%

Carb

%	Salt

mmho/

cm

Soil

pH

CEC

meq	% Base

Saturation

%Ca %Mg % K %Na
0-6	0	0	4872	49.3	3.8	4.87	0.33	81	32.6	74.7	23.7	0.93	0.63
0-6	0	2.5	4965	37.0	3.8	3.90	0.39	8.1	32.4	76.6	21.9	1.07	0.50
0-6	0	5	5087	45.3	3.5	4.77	0.37	8.2	33.7	75.5	22.9	1.00	0.60
0-6	0	10	5169	32.0	3.6	4.77	0.39	8.1	33.6	77.0	21.7	0.90	0.40
0-6	0	15	5472	46.7	3.7	5.00	0.46	8.1	35.7	76.7	21.8	0.93	0.57
LSD05	376.2	NS	NS	0.92	0.10	NS	2.54	NS	NS	0.09	NS
6-24	0	0	4396	43.7	2.0	7.73	0.41	8.3	30.93	71.1	27.6	0.63	0.60
6-24	0	2.5	4444	31.7	2.7	3.80	0.37	8.2	31.23	71.2	27.6	0.77	0.47
6-24	0	5	4186	45.0	2.3	5.30	0.32	8.4	30.10	69.5	29.1	0.80	0.67
6-24	0	10	4122	36.7	2.2	4.33	0.31	8.3	28.57	72.0	26.6	0.80	0.57
6-24	0	15	4298	44.3	3.5	4.37	0.35	8.3	30.20	71.1	27.5	0.83	0.63
LSD05	230.2	NS	1.43	3.04	NS	0.15	2.01	NS	NS	0.18	0.19

Table 6.	Soil analysis following sugarbeets receiving the recommended nitrogen rate (130 lb/A) in 2004 and different spent lime rates

Depth

N

Appl

Lime

T/A	Nitrate

N

lb/A

P

ppm

K

ppm

Cl

lb/A

S

lb/A

B

ppm

Zn

ppm

Fe

ppm

Mn

ppm

Cu

ppm

Mg

ppm
0-6	130	0	7.0	9.3	135.3	5.3	26.0	2.4	0.56	8.5	4.7	0.54	1101
0-6	130	2.5	6.0	9.3	117.0	4.0	39.3	1.9	0.58	8.4	4.9	0.59	947
0-6	130	5	9.7	11.3	124.0	17.0	40.7	2.1	0.60	8.6	5.6	0.54	1007
0-6	130	10	9.0	17.3	132.3	18.7	59.3	2.2	0.66	8.7	6.2	0.59	1020
0-6	130	15	7.7	18.3	117.7	4.0	64.7	2.2	0.61	9.0	5.0	0.57	1052
LSD05	NS	2.23	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.06	NS	1.36	NS	111.4
6-24	130	0	8.0	3.3	78.7	3.0	195.0	1.4	0.26	10.1	1.7	0.54	1232
6-24	130	2.5	5.0	3.0	82.0	3.0	30.0	1.1	0.27	9.5	1.6	0.55	964
6-24	130	5	7.0	3.3	88.3	5.0	54.0	1.2	0.33	9.9	1.9	0.58	1161
6-24	130	10	8.0	3.7	96.7	6.0	192.0	1.3	0.35	10.5	2.0	0.58	1258
6-24	130	15	7.0	5.0	85.7	5.0	66.0	1.2	0.32	10.0	1.7	0.55	1281
LSD05	NS	1.38	17.10	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Depth

N

Appl

Lime

T/A

Ca

ppm

Na

ppm

Om

%

Carb

%	Salt

mmho/

cm

Soil

pH

CEC

meq	% Base

Saturation

% Ca %Mg %K %Na
0-6	130	0	5090	72.7	4.0	5.30	0.36	8.0	35.3	72.2	26.0	1.00	0.87
0-6	130	2.5	5041	48.0	3.7	4.67	0.40	8.2	33.6	75.2	23.3	0.87	0.60
0-6	130	5	5178	59.3	4.0	4.93	0.45	8.2	34.9	74.3	24.0	0.93	0.77
0-6	130	10	5239	73.0	3.5	5.50	0.58	8.2	35.4	74.2	23.9	0.97	0.87
0-6	130	15	5397	59.0	4.0	5.93	0.61	8.2	36.3	74.4	24.0	0.83	0.70
LSD05	236.7	NS	NS	0.59	NS	NS	1.78	1.63	1.41	NS	NS
6-24	130	0	4137	82.7	2.2	8.87	0.41	8.4	31.53	65.9	32.4	0.63	1.10
6-24	130	2.5	4344	30.3	1.9	7.00	0.43	8.3	30.10	72.3	26.6	0.73	0.43
6-24	130	5	4194	51.3	1.9	6.27	0.47	8.3	31.10	67.6	30.9	0.73	0.73
6-24	130	10	4242	73.0	2.2	5.63	0.53	8.4	32.23	65.8	32.5	0.77	0.97
6-24	130	15	4086	118.3	2.1	6.77	0.69	8.4	31.83	64.6	33.1	0.70	1.57
LSD05	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Table 8.	Wheat yield, test weight and protein following sugarbeet at different spent lime rates applied in 2004

Lime

(TDM/A)	Yield

(bu/A)	Test Weight

(lb)	Protein

(%)
0	70.1	58.4	14.3
2.5	70.1	58.1	14.1
5.0	72.3	58.4	14.1
10.0	69.5	58.3	14.1
15.0	70.1	58.1	14.1
Stat. Sign.	NS	NS	NS

Table 9.	Main effects on soybean variety (ave. over lime rates) on yield, oil and protein, 2005

Variety	Yield

(bu/A)	Oil

(%)	Protein

(%)
Gold Country 923RR	44.8	19.32	31.6
Garst 0211RR	44.0	19.72	30.6
LSD05	NS	NS	NS

Table 10.	Main effects of lime rates (ave over varieties) on soybean yield, oil and protein, 2005

Lime

(TDM/A)	Yield

(bu/A)	Oil

(%)	Protein

(%)
0 (check)	42.2	19.88	30.02
2.5	47.3	19.16	32.18
5.0	45.6	19.30	31.78
10.0	43.0	19.95	30.04
15.0	43.9	19.31	31.60
LSD05	3.3	0.60	1.5

Table 11.	Soybean yield, oil and protein following sugarbeet at different spent lime rates applied in 2004

Variety	Lime Treatment

(TDM/A)	Yield

(bu/A)	Oil

(%)	Protein

(%)
Garst 0211RR	0	41.5	20.0	29.6
2.5	48.5	19.6	31.3
5.0	45.4	19.5	31.4
10.0	42.1	20.1	29.7
15.0	42.6	19.5	31.1
Gold Country 923RR	0	42.9	19.8	30.5
2.5	46.0	18.8	33.1
5.0	45.7	19.1	32.2
10.0	43.8	19.8	30.4
15.0	45.3	19.2	32.1

Table 12.	Soil phosphorous levels following sugarbeet, wheat, and soybean at the various spent lime rates

Phosphorous levels (ppm)

Lime

(TDM/A)	2004

sugarbeet

(130 N)

2005

wheat	2004

sugarbeet

(69 N)

2005

soybean
0	9.3	8.75	8.7	9.33
2.5	9.3	9.25	11.0	11.33
5.0	11.3	10.0	12.7	11.00
10.0	17.3	12.25	13.0	12.67
20.0	18.3	12.25	19.3	15.00