Increasing material, processing, and distribution costs have raised superphosphate prices to a point where many farms cannot support the costs of meeting maintenance phosphate requires men& Alternatives to superphosphate, particularly those that have lower processing costs and contain more P, may offer a solution to the problem provided they are agronomically as effective. Phosphate rock may indeed be such an alternative. Preliminary results from a series of five trials in Northland show that on soils of moderate P fertility, with low phosphate retention (PR) and high pH (5.9.6.0), initial pasture growth responses to rock phosphates are smaller than those from single or triple superphosphate. On one soil of higher PR and lower pH, the differences in yield between the rock-phosphates and the super. phosphates were smaller. Of the rock phosphates tested, Sechura and North Carolina (unground and ungranulated) tended to be more effective than ground and granulated Chatham Rise phosphorite. The effect on production of applying fertilisers once every three years, as opposed to annual applications is being investigated using triple superphosphate and Sechura phosphate rock. After two years, production levels appear largely unaffected by differences in application frequency. A comparison of locally-produced superphosphate with a reference standard showed that both performed similarly, indicating that the local product was of satisfactory quality.
Pasture production and soil phosphorus fractions resulting from six previous annual applications of triple superphosphate or Sechura phosphate rock
