RealAg Radio Product Spotlight: Dr. Alan Blaylock Discusses Smart Nutrition™ MAP+MST® As a Phosphate Source
Nutrien Senior Agronomist Dr. Alan Blaylock joined RealAg Radio recently to talk about Smart Nutrition MAP+MST as a phosphate source compared to conventional MAP. Listen to the interview or read Dr. Blaylock’s answers below.
How much phosphate is in each Smart Nutrition MAP+MST granule?
This is a 9-43-0-16 product, so it is 43 percent phosphate.
How does the phosphate in Smart Nutrition MAP+MST differ from other conventional dry phosphate sources?
This is a product that is manufactured by integrating micronized sulfur technology into the monoammonium phosphate during the granulation process. So it’s the same MAP that we would otherwise be making.
Does the sulfur in Smart Nutrition MAP+MST affect the salt index at all?
No, and that’s one of the things that is making it a popular product in Western Canada in some of our prairie production systems. Because the sulfur is an elemental sulfur it’s not a soluble salt, it doesn’t add to the salt index, it actually slightly lowers the salt index of the MAP because it is in elemental form and has to convert to available sulfur in time.
Do you have any tips or advice on how growers should apply Smart Nutrition MAP+MST?
Well really the MAP+MST can be substituted in all of the normal application methods that they would be applying a conventional monoammonium phosphate, so it’s great for seed placed or in-furrow placement because it is a little bit lower salt index and they can get sulfur in the seed row without the damage an ammonium sulfate can potentially cause because of its high salt index. If they are broadcasting phosphate, which is maybe not the best way in some of our dryland production systems, but really it can be plugged in for their conventional MAP in whatever application fits the production system and the equipment, just as they would do with their conventional phosphate sources.
Why should growers use this product instead of just using straight MAP?
What we’ve been seeing in the last couple of decades, but especially the last five to 10 years, is a lot more need for sulfur. As factories and coal-powered power plants and other industrial applications have had to restrict their emissions, and particularly in regard to sulfur dioxide going into the atmosphere, so because we’ve cleaned up the emissions from our industrial processes there’s less sulfur being deposited by atmospheric deposition. What we’re finding, especially as yields go higher and long-term cropping and the absence of this source of sulfur, is that we need more sulfur applied to a variety of our crops, particularly those crops that have high sulfur demand, like canola, alfalfa, corn. So the basic answer is we really need sulfur application in many of our crops, and particularly wanting to get growers thinking about applying sulfur every year to keep that soil-sulfur level adequate.
You already alluded to the Canadian prairies, but what other regions are a good fit for MAP+MST?
We’re seeing great response in the Corn Belt in the U.S. Corn is a crop that does require sulfur. The actual rate is certainly not as high as something like alfalfa and maybe not as high as canola and some of the oilseeds, but corn does have a significant sulfur requirement
