
%0 Journal Article
%A Blair, GJ 
%A Dana, M 
%A Lefroy, R 
%T A glasshouse evaluation of sulfur fertilizer sources for crops and pastures. II. A comparison of sulfur coated triple superphosphates and gypsum
%J Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
%D 1994/10/01
%V 45
%N 7
%P 1517-23
%K gypsum;elemental S;coated fertilizers;pasture fertilization
%R https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9941517
%U https://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AR9941517 
%X In many parts of the world it has become more economical to use triple superphosphate (TSP) rather than single superphosphate (SSP) as a pasture fertilizer where only P deficiency exists. Coating TSP with elemental S is an attractive alternative to SSP for situations where P and S deficiency exists. A pot experiment was conducted on an S deficient Aquic Haplustalf soil to compare the ability of gypsum (G) and S coated TSP to supply S to a ryegrass/white clover pasture over 14 repeated harvests over a 96 week period. The adhesives used to coat S to TSP were UNE1, UNE3, UNE2 and a commercial product (HF). The reverse dilution 35S technique was used to calculate fertilizer S uptake. Total yields were highest with G and UNE1. Total fertilizer S recovery by the pasture was 64.4% for G and 52.3% and 52.9% for UNEl and UNE3 respectively. These amounts were significantly higher than from UNE2 or HF. The time course of fertilizer S release varied between products and shows that bonding method can affect S availability from S coated TSP products. 
