![Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (15)
Similar to Clay research summary
Similar to Clay research summary (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Clay research summary
- 1. Clay amended soilless substrate: Increasing water and nutrient efficiency in containerized crop production J.S. Owen, Jr., Dept. Horticultural Science Dept. Soil Science NC STATE UNIVERSITY
- 12. Approach NUTRIENTS ENVIRONMENT IRRIGATION SUBSTRATE Container
- 13. Approach NUTRIENTS ENVIRONMENT IRRIGATION SUBSTRATE Yeager et al., 1997
- 14. Approach NUTRIENTS ENVIRONMENT IRRIGATION SUBSTRATE Yeager et al., 1997 EFFICIENT?
- 15. Infrastructure
- 16. Approach NUTRIENTS ENVIRONMENT IRRIGATION SUBSTRATE Container
- 17. Approach NUTRIENTS ENVIRONMENT IRRIGATION SUBSTRATE Container
- 18. Amendment
- 21. Amendment Raw Clay Selection & Mining Primary Crusher Secondary Crusher Dryer (RVM) Mill Screen Rotary Kiln (LVM) Oil-Dri Corporation of America Bag or Bulk ≤ 800 °C ≈ 120°C
- 22. Amendment Montmorillonite Palygorskite Shulze, D.G., 2002. An introduction to soil mineralogy. In: Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications SSSA Book Series no. 7.
- 23. Amendment Montmorillonite Palygorskite Surface Area: 98 m 2 /g Surface Area: 122.5 m 2 /g Oil-Dri Corporation of America
- 24. Amendment Heating Dehydration Natural Occurring Low Volatile Material Shulze, D.G., 2002. An introduction to soil mineralogy. In: Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications SSSA Book Series no. 7. Montmorillonite
- 25. Amendment Shulze, D.G., 2002. An introduction to soil mineralogy. In: Soil Mineralogy with Environmental Applications SSSA Book Series no. 7. Heating Dehydration Natural Occurring Low Volatile Material Palygorskite
- 31. Field Plots
- 32. Field Plots
- 35. Clay Processing
- 36. Clay Processing 20 L
- 37. Clay Processing 31 L
- 38. Clay Processing 31 L WUE 731 ml g -1 to 599 ml g -1
- 39. Clay Processing 107,000 gallons of water saved per growing acre while maximizing growth
- 40. Clay Processing
- 41. Clay Processing 19 mg
- 42. Clay Processing 29 mg
- 43. Clay Processing PUE Control 27% Clay 36%
- 48. Clay Rate Porometer Results
- 49. Clay Rate
- 50. Clay Rate
- 51. Clay Rate
- 52. Clay Rate
- 53. Clay Rate Normal Range
- 55. Clay Rate
- 56. Clay Rate Max. = 12%
- 57. Clay Rate
- 58. Clay Rate Max. = 11%
- 59. Clay Rate
- 60. Clay Rate
- 61. Clay Rate PUE = 46%
- 62. Clay Rate
- 63. Clay Rate 33 mg
- 64. Clay Rate 33 mg
- 65. Clay Rate
- 66. Clay Rate
- 67. Clay Rate
- 76. Input Efficiency
- 77. Input Efficiency A B 31 g
- 78. Input Efficiency Not Significant
- 79. Input Efficiency
- 80. Input Efficiency A B 77 g
- 81. Input Efficiency B A 31 g
- 82. Input Efficiency
- 83. Input Efficiency 108% 38% 48% 54% 21%
- 85. Input Efficiency B A 11%
- 86. Input Efficiency B A B 64%
- 87. Input Efficiency
- 88. Input Efficiency 26 L
- 89. Input Efficiency
- 90. Input Efficiency 90,000 gallons of water saved per growing acre while maintaining growth
- 91. Input Efficiency
- 92. Input Efficiency 16 L
- 93. Input Efficiency
- 94. Input Efficiency 55,000 gallons per growing acre
- 95. Input Efficiency
- 96. Input Efficiency 14 mg
- 97. Input Efficiency 7 mg
- 99. Input Efficiency
- 100. Input Efficiency
- 101. Input Efficiency 3.4 mL min -1 2.7 mL min -1
- 102. Input Efficiency 334 mL
- 103. Input Efficiency 4% increase in available water which equates into 500 ml
- 109. Financial Support NC STATE UNIVERSITY FNRI
- 110. Thank you….. William Reece Mary Lorscheider Kim Hutchison Beth Harden Dr. Fonteno Dr. Northup Dr. Beauchemin Mike Jett Dr. Swallow Sandy Donaghy Bradley Holland Tim Ketchie Anthony LeBude Michelle McGinnis Cindy Proctor Carroll Williamson Kristen Walton Brian Jackson Daniel Norden Greta Bjorkquist Dr. Hunt Committee: Dr. Warren Dr. Bilderback Dr. Cassel Dr. Hesterberg Horticulture & Soil Science Faculty & Graduate Students My family
- 111. Thank you….. William Reece Mary Lorscheider Kim Hutchison Beth Harden Dr. Fonteno Dr. Northup Dr. Beauchemin Mike Jett Dr. Swallow Sandy Donaghy Bradley Holland Tim Ketchie Anthony LeBude Michelle McGinnis Cindy Proctor Carroll Williamson Kristen Walton Brian Jackson Daniel Norden Greta Bjorkquist Committee: Dr. Warren Dr. Bilderback Dr. Cassel Dr. Hesterberg Horticulture & Soil Science Faculty & Graduate Students My family
Editor's Notes
- LF planned overage
- 11% sand = 172 L; WUE = 731 ml ml g -1 0.85 to 4.75 mm = 152 L (20 L, 12%) 0.25 to 0.85 mm = 141 L (31 L, 18%); WUE = 599 ml g -1 (132 ml WUE of 599 vs 731 ml g (18%)
- 11% sand = 172 L; WUE = 731 ml ml g -1 0.85 to 4.75 mm = 152 L (20 L, 12%) 0.25 to 0.85 mm = 141 L (31 L, 18%); WUE = 599 ml g -1 (132 ml WUE of 599 vs 731 ml g (18%)
- 11% sand = 172 L; WUE = 731 ml ml g -1 0.85 to 4.75 mm = 152 L (20 L, 12%) 0.25 to 0.85 mm = 141 L (31 L, 18%); WUE = 599 ml g -1 (132 ml WUE of 599 vs 731 ml g (18%) Water applied 107,000 gal Acre saved
- 11% sand = 172 L; WUE = 731 ml ml g -1 0.85 to 4.75 mm = 152 L (20 L, 12%) 0.25 to 0.85 mm = 141 L (31 L, 18%); WUE = 599 ml g -1 (132 ml WUE of 599 vs 731 ml g (18%)
- 11% sand = 172 L; WUE = 731 ml ml g -1 0.85 to 4.75 mm = 152 L (20 L, 12%) 0.25 to 0.85 mm = 141 L (31 L, 18%); WUE = 599 ml g -1 (132 ml WUE of 599 vs 731 ml g (18%)
- 31 % decrease (61 to 42 mg)
- 48% decrease (61 to 32 mg)
- 9% increase in PUE
- 50% increase in P content from 0 to 12% amendment rate
- 0% PUE =31%
- 0% PUE =31%
- 1.4 fold increase
- 1.4 fold increase
- 1.4 fold increase
- 1.4 fold increase
- 1.4 fold increase
- 0% PUE =31%
- 0% PUE =31%
- 0% PUE =31%
- 0% PUE =31%
- 18% increase from 168 g to 199 g
- 46% increase from 168 g to 245 g
- 16% increase from 199 g to 230 g
- 16% increase from 199 g to 230 g
- 16% increase from 199 g to 230 g
- 16% increase from 199 g to 230 g
- 26% decrease from 100 L to 74 L
- Same trend, however used approximately 10 L less water Regardless of substrate you can save approximately 90,000 gal growing acre
- Same trend, however used approximately 10 L less water Regardless of substrate you can save approximately 90,000 gal growing acre
- 70% decrease in effluent from 23 L to 7 L
- 70% decrease in effluent from 23 L to 7 L Decrease of 55,000 gal growing acre
- 67% decrease from 21 mg to 7 mg
- 64% decrease from 11 mg to 4 mg