Project Details:

Soybean Soil Fertility in North Central and North West North Dakota

Parent Project: This is the first year of this project.
Checkoff Organization:North Dakota Soybean Council
Categories:Soil fertility
Organization Project Code:
Project Year:2017
Lead Principal Investigator:David Franzen (North Dakota State University)
Co-Principal Investigators:
Chris Augustin (North Dakota State University-North Central Research Extension Center)

Contributing Organizations

Funding Institutions

Information and Results

Comprehensive project details are posted online for three-years only, and final reports indefinitely. For more information on this project please contact this state soybean organization.

Click a section heading to display its contents.

Final Project Results


View uploaded report Word file

Soybean Soil Fertility in North Central and Northwest North Dakota

Executive Summary 2017

David Franzen and Chris Augustin, North Dakota State University

There have been few soybean soil fertility studies from north-central and northwest North Dakota. This research will fill that gap and provide confidence to soybean growers in those regions for nutrient management practices that are valid and cost-effective. The results of this research will increase soybean grower profitability in the region.

1. Determine major nutrient requirements of soybean in north central and northwest North
2. Determine response of soybean to sugar beet waste lime for pH improvement in acid soils of
north central North Dakota.
3. Determine the starter fertilizer response of soybean in north central and northwest North
4. Determine the foliar fertilizer response of soybean in north central and northwest North

Sites near Columbus and Minot, which had previously been grown to soybean were chosen because they represented the range of soil pH in the region. Columbus had a pH of 7.5, while pH was 6.2 at Minot. Treatments at both sites included phosphate (P) row starters and post-emergence foliar treatments. However, the Columbus site treatments included Levesol (‘metal-less’ chelate) and Soygreen (iron chelate fertilizer) that might make a yield/quality difference in high pH soils. The Minot site received lime treatments due to its lower pH, and no chelates.

Treatments follow:
1. Check (no fertilizer)
2. Seed Bradyrhizobium inoculated (at planting)
3. 100 pounds per acre of 11-52-0 broadcast (preplant)
4. 3 gallon per acre 10-34-0 (in-furrow at planting)
5. 3 gallon per acre 6-24-6 (in-furrow at planting)
6. 50 pounds of N per acre as urea (preplant broadcast)
7. Sugar beet waste lime @2 tons per acre (Minot on acid soils- preplant broadcast)
7. Iron ortho-ortho-EDDHA seed applied (Columbus, high pH-in-furrow at planting)
8. Sugar beet waste lime @ 4 tons per acre (Minot on acid soils-preplant broadcast)
9. Naked ortho-ortho-EDDHA seed applied (Levesol-Columbus, high pH-in-furrow at
10. Foliar 9-18-9 at V5
11. Foliar 9-18-9 with S at V5
12. Foliar 9-18-9 at R2
13. Foliar 9-19-9 with S at R2

There were no differences in yield or protein concentration at Columbus due to any treatment. There was a small difference in oil concentration between the urea application/Levesol treatments (lower) and the 3 gal/acre 10-34-0 and foliar 9-18-9 R2 treatments (higher).

At Minot, treatments resulted in differences in yield. Inoculation resulted in highest yield and the foliar 9-18-9 R2 treatment had the lowest yield. Row-starter P treatments were not superior to the broadcast treatment and the lime applications were similar in yield to the check.

Generalizations on soybean soil fertility cannot be made based on these two experiments. The report for next year will include the results of two more sites with differing pH levels and the same treatments as imposed this year. As data is accumulated in this new region of soybean production, trends that point to important considerations for soybean fertilizer inputs will become apparent.

Project Years