You are on page 1of 56

Comparisons of MAP and DAP a review of literature

Process of information acquisition


Requested all PPI directors to pass on any known studies or data on MAP-DAP comparisons. Each PPI director communicated with scientists in their region requesting information on comparisons An extensive search of Agricola and Agris databases (keywords: phosphorus and fertilizer and sources; ammoniated and phosphate and fertilizer; ammoniated and phosphorus and fertilizer; MAP and DAP, etc.) was performed A Google search was similarly performed.

Ammoniated phosphate fertilizers


Ammoniated phosphates are formed from the reaction of phosphoric acid (ortho- or poly-) with ammonia. First major production in the U.S. began in about 1920 (MAP). In about 1954 major production of DAP was initiated. Manufacture of the third member of the group, ammonium polyphosphates (APP), began in earnest in the late 1950s. APP is generally fluid, while MAP and DAP are granular.

DAP (Diammonium phosphate)


Single recognized grade in the world marketplace is 18-46-0. Lower analyses may not be sold as DAP. Basic process for production involves ammoniation of phosphoric acid H3PO4 + 2NH3 (NH4)2HPO4 Requires relatively low impurity phosphoric acid. Higher acid quality requirement is becoming a greater issue as phosphate rock (PR) quality declines, particularly in Florida.

MAP (Monoammonium phosphate)


There is no single commodity grade for MAP. Can vary 10-50-0, 11-51-0, 11-55-0, and others. Basic process for production involves ammoniation of phosphoric acid H3PO4 + NH3 (NH4)H2PO4 Lower quality, high impurity phosphoric acid can be used in MAP production. Thus, manufacture is favored where PR quality is declining.

World MAP and DAP production, 1999-2003


World production, 1000 tons 14 000 12 000 10 000 8 000 6 000 4 000 2 000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

DAP

MAP

IFA, 2005

Characteristics of MAP and DAP


MAP 90-100 DAP 90-100

Water soubility, % of total P Saturated solution pH P, moles/l NH4, moles/l Partial pressure of NH3, mm Hg (0.1 M solution) 75 C 100 C 125 C

3.5 2.9 2.9

8.0 3.8 7.6

----0.05

0.9 5.6 28.8

MAP Fertilizersoil reaction


q Residual granule & q P-saturated zone immediate soil interface Dissolution of Si, Fe, Al, Present either in original Mn, Ca, Mg, K granule or formed: Precipitation of
(Ca,Mg)(NH4)(Fe,Al)(PO4)(F,OH).H2O

5-10% of total P may remain in these compounds in the granule shell


More soluble that variscite or strengite but less soluble than DCPD below pH of 7 Doesnt form in fluid MAP formulations
After Headley and McLaughlin

DCPD main crystaline P Amorphous Fe & Al phosphates Struvite:Mg(NH4)PO4.6H2O Taranakites: (NH4)3Al5H6(PO4)8.18H2O

DAP fertilizersoil reactions


q P-saturated zone q Residual granule & immediate soil interface Much less dissolution of metals except K Present either in original Precipitation of granule or formed:
(Ca,Mg)(NH4)(Fe,Al)(PO4)(F,OH).H2O

5-10% of total P may remain in these compounds in the granule shell


More soluble that variscite or strengite but less soluble than DCPD below pH of 7

Ca and Mg phosphates including DCPD Mixed CaNH4 and MgNH4 phosphates including struvite Colloidal apatite 3 to 5 times more solubilization of organic matter than with MAP believed to interfere with growth of large crystals & allow increased P mobility

After Headley and McLaughlin

MAP and DAP field comparisons

Wheat

Kansas- Winter Wheat


Yield response to different sources of P- Broadcast

Year 2

Year 1
51.0 49.7 41.6 49.2

60
Grain yield,

45.3 45.6

40
23.8

38.6

20 0 Check MAP DAP UAPP

Kansas Fertilizer Research Report

Kansas- Winter Wheat


Yield response to different sources of P- In-furrow

Year 2

Year 1
51.0 49.7 52.3

60
Grain yield,

45.3 37.4

40
23.8

35.8

33.3

20 0 Check MAP DAP UAPP

Kansas Fertilizer Research Report

Kansas- Winter Wheat


Yield response to P source and placement (year one)

60
Band Broadcast

50
Grain yield,

40 30 20 10 0 Check MAP DAP UAPP


45.3 51.0 51.0 49.7 49.7 52.3 49.2

Kansas Fertilizer Research Report

Kansas- Winter Wheat


Yield response to P source and placement (year two)

50
Band
Grain yield,

Broadcast

40 30 20 10 0 Check MAP DAP UAPP


23.8 45.6 35.8 37.4 41.6 33.3 38.6

Kansas Fertilizer Research Report

Montana- Winter Wheat


Heads per ft. of row as affected by P source, rate (N), and soil- In-furrow
50

Wheat heads, no. per ft. row

Calcareous- MAP Non-calcareous- MAP

Calcareous- DAP Non-calcareous- DAP

40

30

20 0 10 20 30 N applied with seed, lb/A

Smith et al.

Montana- Winter Wheat


Yield as affected by P source, rate (N), and soil- In-furrow
50
Calcareous- MAP Non-calcareous- MAP Calcareous- DAP Non-calcareous- DAP

Wheat yield, bu/A

40

30

20 0 10 20 30 N applied with seed, lb/A

Smith et al.

Montana- Winter Wheat


Yield as affected by P source, rate (P), and soil- In-furrow
45 40 Yield, bu/A 35 30 25 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 lb P2O5/A
After Smith et al.

s soil nNon-calcareou

il so s ou re ca l Ca

MAP DAP MAP DAP

South Dakota- Spring Wheat


Effect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

MAP 100 75 50 25 0 50
106 112

DAP

TSP

7 inch rows

Stand, % of check

106 80 90 85

100 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

Gelderman et al.

South Dakota- Spring Wheat


Effect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

MAP 125

DAP

TSP

28 inch rows

Stand, % of check

100 75
128

50 25
32 61 28 38 11

0 50 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

100

Gelderman et al.

North Dakota- Spring wheat


Stand reduction as influenced by N and P source and rate for three spreader types- In-furrow

Deibert et al.

Barley and oat

Montana- Barley
Stand density as affected by P source and rate (N) (year one)- In-furrow
70
Plants per meter at tillering

60

50
MAP DAP UAPP y= 56+1.026x-0.0298x2 y= 60.8+0.892x-0.0398x2 y= 39.3+2.777x-0.0826x2

40 10 20
N applied with seed, lb/A

30

Christensen et al.

Montana- Barley
Culm density as affected by P source and rate (N) (year one)- In-furrow
250

Culms per meter row

225

200

175

150 10

MAP DAP UAPP

y= 218.0-1.004x+0.0159x2 y= 189.5+3.268x-0.1124x2 y= 188.5+5.063x-0.1791x2

20
N applied with seed, lb/A

30

Christensen et al.

Montana- Barley
Culm density as affected by P source and rate (N) (year two)- In-furrow
370
MAP DAP UAPP y= 316.7+2.079x-0.0331x2 y= 268.6+4.767x-0.0849x2 y= 343.5-1.529x+0.0206x2

Culms per meter row

350

330

310

290 10 20 30 40
N applied with seed, lb/A

Christensen et al.

South Dakota- Barley


Effect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

100 MAP DAP TSP

7 inch rows

Stand, % of check

75

50
88 86 86 79 56 72

25

0 50 100 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

Gelderman et al.

South Dakota- Barley


Effect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

100 MAP DAP TSP

28 inch rows

Stand, % of check

75

50
76 72 38 4 18

25
30

0 50 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

100

Gelderman et al.

South Dakota- Oats


Effect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

MAP 100

DAP

TSP

7 inch rows

Stand, % of check

75 50 25 0 50 100 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A


106 103 105 89 80

99

Gelderman et al.

South Dakota- Oats


Effect of P source and rate on stand- In-furrow

100 MAP DAP TSP

28 inch rows

Stand, % of check

75

50
84 66 83

25
15 2

41

0 50 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

100

Gelderman et al.

Saskatchewan pH=7.7 6.6% CaCO3


P removed by oat tops, mg P/culture

oC

Influence of P source and temperature during the initial soilfertilizer reaction period on P uptake by oat tops

3.0

7 wks

16, 27 5 16

2.0 1 wk

27

1.0
Beaton and Read

Check

DAP

MAP

MCP

Rice

Arkansas- Rice
Effect of P source on P tissue concentration- Broadcast
0.4

P tissue concentration, %

Midtiller
0.3

Panicle differentiation

0.2 0.30 0.1 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.28

0.24

0 MAP DAP TSP

Fertilizer source

Wilson et al.

Arkansas- Rice
Effect of P source on dry matter accumulation- Broadcast
3000

Dry matter accumulation, g

Midtiller

Panicle differentiation

Heading

2000

2538 1000

2584

2495

143 0

616 MAP

146

626 DAP

142

639 TSP

Fertilizer source

Wilson et al.

Arkansas- Rice
Yield response to various sources of P- Broadcast
MAP DAP TSP

160
Rice yield, bu/A

120
167 146 147 149

80

160

161

159

155

156

40

0 1996
Wilson et al.

1997

Average

Corn and soybean

Wisconsin- Corn
Effect of P source on corn yield- starter (2x2)
150 No starter control 125 MAP DAP

Corn yield, bu/A

100 75
118 120 117 122 123 108 120 121

50 25 0

99

1995

1996

Mean

Rankin, M.

Michigan- Corn
Average response to various sources of P- Banded 2x2
150
No significant difference among sources, LSD (.05)

125
Corn yield, bu/A

100 75
125 127 120 122 123

50 25 0 DAP MAP UP U+CSP AN+CSP

Yerokun and Christenson

Illinois- Corn
Effect of P source on corn yield at multiple locations- In-furrow
225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Ashton Gridley Springfield Location (1993) Pana Oblong
111 133 137 137 134 114 190 188 182 165 167 170 186 199 201

Control MAP Based on 10 lb N rate

DAP

Hoeft et al.

Corn yield, bu/A

Minnesota- Corn
Effect of source (N), timing, and rate on corn yieldBroadcast

Parameter Source: MAP DAP AS Time: Fall Spring N rate: 0 40 80

Yield bu/A 136.6 135.0 137.7 127.0 145.8 89.3 129.6 143.2

Study objectives: To determine the availability of N to corn from fall and spring applied DAP, MAP, and AS

Randall, G.

South Dakota- Corn


Average effect of P source and rate on stand across multiple locations- In-furrow
MAP 100 DAP TSP

Stand, % of control

75

50

100 97

97

99

93

98

91 71

96 84 55 83

25

0 12.5 25 50 100 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

Gerwing et al.

South Dakota- Soybean


Average effect of P source and rate on stand across multiple locations- In-furrow
100 MAP DAP TSP

30 inch rows

Stand, % of control

75

50
67 74 59 41 37 18 27 12 4 6 14 51

25

0 12.5 25 50 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

100

Gerwing et al.

South Dakota- Soybean


Average effect of P source and rate on stand across multiple locations- In-furrow
MAP 100 DAP TSP

7.5 inch rows

Stand, % of check

75

50

91

90

98 83 82

90 68 60

85

25

0 25 50 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A 100

Gerwing et al.

Michigan- Soybeans
P source comparison- Banded to the side and below seed
60
MAP DAP

Soybean yield, bu/A

40

51.8 51.1

53.0 54.0

53.0 53.0

52.6 52.7

20

0 1979
Christenson, D.R.

1980

1981

Average

Sugar beet

Michigan- Sugar Beets


P source comparison- Banded to the side and below seed
30
MAP DAP

Sugar beet yield, ton/A

20

25.4 25.3

25.4 25.4

25.1 24.8

25.3 25.2

10

0 1978
Christenson, D.R.

1979

1980

Average

Sunflower

South Dakota- Sunflower


Average effect of P source and rate on stand across multiple site years- In-furrow
MAP 100 DAP TSP

Stand, % of check

75

50
87 86

96 78 71

94 76 62 42 43 18 50

25

0 12.5 25 50 100 P rate in-furrow, lb P2O5/A

Gerwing et al., and Gelderman et al.

Alfalfa

New Mexico- Alfalfa


3 year average response to various sources of P- Broadcast

Oven dry forage yield, ton/A

14
LSD (.05) 1.13
MAP and TSP > others

13

12
12.3 12.0 12.5

13.8 13.2

13.7 13.3

13.4 12.9

13.4

13.1 12.5

11

10

Cihacek, L.J.

AS UP -T SP AS -1 -T SP -2

AS

Ch ec k

M AP

UA P

OS P

AP S

DA P

AP P

TS P

New Mexico- Alfalfa


Effect of P sources on soil test P- Broadcast
14 12 Olsen P, ppm 10 8 6 4 2 0 Check MAP DAP APP
7 ppm critical value

119 lb P2O5/A/year
Available soil P: MAP =DAP Initial 1982 1983 1984

Cihacek, L.J.

Summary

Practical summary
The initially acid reaction zone (pH < 4) of MAP: MAP
Helps prevent initial formation of toxic levels of ammonia Promotes precipitation of potentially favorable metastable reaction products, especially in alkaline soils. Increases potential P transport rate across root cell membranes

Practical summary
The initially alkaline reaction zone (pH > 8) of DAP: DAP
Increases potential for ammonia toxicity to seeds or seedlings; can be managed by limiting rate applied in seed contact Results in precipitation of relatively insoluble apatite but also other potentially favorable metastable reaction products, especially in acid soils Solubilizes organic matter believed to increase movement of P away from the granule site Reduces potential P transport rate across cell membranes

Practical summary
Differences in reaction zone characteristics between MAP and DAP diminish with time usually becoming minor within a month or two. The majority of field comparisons of MAP and DAP in the published technical literature that were conducted using typical farmer practices show only minor yield differences, if any, due to P source effects. Recent development of new P fertilizers and additives is increasing the number of field P source comparisons in todays farming systems.

END