Summary of placement and timing trials
Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) is an Ammonium Nitrate product
extensively over the past forty years.
Nitrogen content is generally around 27% N, compared with Urea
There are several common sources of nitrogen used, of
which is 46%. The nitrogen source is 50% Nitrate and 50% Ammo-
common as it is an internation-ally traded commodity around
The advantages of CAN include
the world and is also the cheapest Nitrogen source
two types of nitrogen supply—which in theory will be more
Other sources include:Sulphate of Ammonia (either
as a powdered/fine crystal product, or a granulated
form—either way it contains about 21% N).
Ammonium Nitrate, coated with a calcium Oxide powder. The disadvantages of CAN include
Liquid Nitrogen. Coated nitrogens. Coatings of
Almost twice as much is needed for the same yield—increasing
a polymer resin or with nitrification inhibitors are
The cost of the product is similar or higher than urea, meaning
release and make it safer to place N in close proximity to
the cost per hectare is near double. Claims that half the rate can be used for the same final SUMMIT FERTILIZERS yield result are not true. Work done in WA since the 1970’s have shown that it is equal to Urea on a unit of
Summit undertook a series of Nitrogen research trials in 1998—2001 looking at C.A.N. as a source of N in WA conditions. This follows on from work done in the past 3 decades by Mel Mason at the WA Dept of Agriculture and by others since. This prior research concluded that C.A.N. was a reasonable source of N, but not superior to Urea.
Ammonium nitrate is less damaging to the seed as it germinates, so C.A.N. can be used at seeding to supply up to about 25—30 N safely. The question really is, is it worth the extra cost to achieve that small advantage, when urea could be spread in front for the same or better response?
C.A.N. may be less acidifying than urea, but that depends on how much of the Nitrogen is leached. It may also be no less acidifying under some conditions. Summit Fertilizers Graph 1: Discussion. In this trial there was a good N response. Both sources of Nitrogen performed similarly. A quick gross margin, {using wheat at $150.00, Freight at $20.00, products priced at 2003 prices (Urea $377.00 [ex Esp] and CAN at $370.00).} would reveal that the return from Urea is $411.90/ha compared with $368.34/ha for CAN. This is a huge difference in return for no benefit. The liming benefit (if any would only be a few dollars per hectare.) Summit Fertilizers Graph 2: Discussion. This canola trial gave a nitrogen response of nearly 500kg/ha. Once again thee was no agronomic benefit from using CAN over Urea, however CAN is about twice the cost.
Over the years, 1996 to 2001 Summit conducted a range of Nitrogen source trials comparing many sources of nitrogen. Applied correctly, Urea IBS inevitably gave the best results. Other sources, such as CAN, were often agronomically equal but rarely better than urea, and usually more expensive.
Achieving Effective Partnerships with Parents (EPPa) EFFECTIVE provides a structure to help schools to meet the new challenges of: PARTNERSHIPS Every Child Matters WITH PARENTS Extended Schools School Self-evaluation Five Year Strategy EPPa has been A Strategy and Toolkit supported by: for developing effective partnerships between schools, pa
Dr. med. Alex P. Lange Spezialgebiet Hornhaut- und refraktive Chirurgie Sprechstunde Berufliche Tätigkeiten Hirslanden Gruppe, Medizinische Ökonomie (Prof. Dr. med Thomas D. Szucs)Bezirksspital Affoltern am Albis, Assistenzarzt Innere Medizin Kantonsspital Luzern, Assistenzarzt Augenklinik (PD Dr. med. Isaak Schipper)Stadtspital Triemli Zürich, Assistenzarzt Augenklinik (Prof. D
Summary of placement and timing trials