ANHYDROUS AMMONIA APPLICATION RATE ERRORS

R. W. Weber, R. D. Grisso, C. A. Shapiro, W. L. Kranz, J. L. Schinstock

The application rates of 61 anhydrous ammonia applicators were measured to determine their application
accuracy. Thirty percent of the operators underapplied anhydrous ammonia while 34% overapplied. The principle
distinction between applicators was the use of "controllers" or "regulators." The application rate errors of 17
controllers and 44 regulators were significantly different. Fifty-nine percent of the controllers and 27% of the regulators
had acceptable application rate errors. Thus, it was concluded that controllers were more accurate than regulators.
Keywords. Agricultural chemicals, Anhydrous ammonia, Applicators, Controllers, Field measurement, Nitrogen
fertilization, Regulators.
ABSTRACT.

itrogen (N) is an essential element for growing

crops. Approximately 65% of the commercial
N is annually supplied to Nebraska agriculture
as anhydrous ammonia (NH3). This makes up
682 G (751,000 tons) of NH 3 applied to Nebraska cropland
(Nebraska Department of Agriculture, 1992).
Nitrate contaminated wells have been associated with
agricultural practices (Exner and Spalding, 1990). To help
protect the groundwater, improved N management and
precise application techniques are needed. Current best
management practices used in production agriculture to
help protect groundwater from N contamination include:
(1) selecting a realistic yield goal, (2) accounting for all
N-sources that contribute to meeting crop requirements,
(3) determining the N-source that best fits the farming
practice, and (4) managing irrigation water applications to
minimize leaching of water and N beyond the crop root
zone.
Nitrogen application rates depend on the crop species,
soil texture, the amount of rainfall and/or irrigation
expected, the time of application, and the amount of
N available from other sources (left over in soil, expected
from irrigation, applied as a starter, etc.). Typically,
N-rates range from 112 to 224 k g - N / h a (100 to
200 lb-N/acre) for corn, 67 to 112 kg-N/ha (60 to

100 lb-N/acre) for grain sorghum, and 28 to 56 kg-N/ha

(25 to 50 lb-N/acre) for wheat. Anhydrous ammonia is
typically applied for corn during preplant (early spring),
sidedress (late spring), or post harvest (fall) operations.
Application during these times is often dependent on soil
conditions and the total area an operator needs to treat. For
wheat and grain sorghum, NH 3 is usually applied during
pre-plant operations.
Research has focused on improving N-rate selection
procedures and accounting for all nitrogen credits with less
emphasis placed on improving application practices and
equipment. As producers fine-tune their application rates,
they become more interested in reducing the risk of uneven
application.
The objective of this project was to determine the
application rate errors of farm operators with their
anhydrous ammonia application equipment and to identify
some of the factors affecting application errors.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Anhydrous ammonia used in agriculture is referred to as

a fertilizer grade. By definition, NH3 contains a minimum
of 99.5% ammonia, of which 82% is N, 0.2 to 0.5% is
water, and a maximum of five parts per million (ppm) oil
(Agri-Chemicals, 1985). The boiling point of NH3 is -33
C (-28 F) at atmospheric pressure. Therefore NH 3 is
typically transported and stored in a pressure tested tank
Article was submitted for publication in February 1994; reviewed and
that is able to withstand pressures of 2760 kPa (400 psi).
approved for publication by the Power and Machinery Div. of ASAE in
Concerns about N's affect on the environment have
September 1994. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 93-1548.
been raised because of increasing detection of nitrates in
Contribution from the Depts. of Biological Systems Engineering and
Agronomy. Journal Series No. 10568, Agricultural Research Division,
the groundwater. Once ammonium is converted to nitrate it
University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Mention of trade and company names
becomes susceptible to leaching into the groundwater. As
are for the benefit of the reader and do not infer endorsement or
agriculture has increased its use of N fertilizers, nitrate
preferential treatment of the products by the University of Nebraska,
level increases have been detected in domestic wells.
Lincoln.
The authors are Robert W. Weber, ASAE Member Engineer, Therefore, concerns for environmental issues have caused
Graduate Student, Robert D. Grisso, ASAE Member Engineer,
the researcher to redirect their efforts on N-rate selection
Extension Engineer and Associate Professor, Biological Systems
procedures. Madison and Brunet (1985) noted that
Engineering Dept. University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Charles A. Shapiro,
concentrations
of nitrate less than 3 ppm are indicative of
Extension Soil Specialist and Associate Professor, William L. Kranz,
ASAE Member Engineer, Extension Irrigation Specialist and Assistant contamination by human activities. They estimated that
Professor, Northeast Research and Extension Center, Concord, Nebr.; and
nationally 20% of all wells exceed this concentration, with
Jack L. Schinstock, ASAE Member Engineer, Professor, Biological 6% exceeding the national safe drinking limit of 10 ppm.
Systems Engineering Dept., University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Nielsen and Lee (1986) noted that wells containing
Applied Engineering in Agriculture
VOL. 11(2):211-217

1995 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0883-8542 / 95 /1102-0211

211

> 3 ppm occurred in 29% of the counties across the

United States.
Injection application method is defined, by ASAE
Standard S327.1 (1987) as "the mechanical placement of a
chemical beneath the soil surface with a minimum of
mixing or stirring of the soil, as with an injection blade or
knife." Anhydrous ammonia application below the surface
does require more energy to place the material than
broadcast or banded applications (Hoeft and Siemens,
1975), but NH 3 requires the least amount of total energy
for fertilizer production, transportation, and application as
compared to other forms of nitrogen fertilizer.
Quirin and Wells (1968) gave seven criteria that should
be considered when designing NH 3 application equipment:
(1) the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil,
(2) the farm and field size, (3) the crops grown, (4) soil and
crop conditions present during different seasons of the
year, (5) the penetration depth to minimize losses of NH 3
to the atmosphere, (6) adequate tool bar strength to allow
the closest spaced knives to be pulled through the soil
without incurring stress breakage and minimize
compaction, and (7) the potential for combined operations.
Metering systems for NH 3 are different from other
chemical applicators because a pump is not required to
create flow. Flow is created due to the nurse tank pressure
forcing NH 3 to flow out of the discharge tubes when the
valve is opened. There are two types of metering devices
commonly used with NH 3 application equipment. These
are pressure regulated orifices, "regulators", and feed back
control systems, "controllers".
Regulators maintain a constant pressure drop across a
metering orifice. Changing the size of the orifice regulates
NH 3 flow rates. Manufacturer's calibrate regulators by
measuring the flow rate at a known pressure. Since
regulators meter NH3 in the gas/liquid phase, they need to
compensate for the gas portion. Anhydrous ammonia gas is
formed when the pressure in the transfer hose is lowered by
fluid friction. The gas weighs much less than the liquid.
According to John Blue (1981), "as the pressure of
ammonia is lowered, as by friction in a flowing line, gas is
evolved, which weighs much less than the liquid, and the
density is less so die flow rate through a given size meter
orifice is reduced".
A controller measures the ground speed and NH 3 flow
rate, and compares a computed application rate to an
intended application rate. After comparing, me controller
adjusts a servo-valve to change the flow rate. Most
controllers will use a heat exchanger to condense most of
the vapor before entering the flow meter. This permits
liquid to pass through the flow meter which increases the
accuracy of measurement.
Liquid pesticide and NH 3 calibration techniques are
very similar. The "known area" method is a common
technique used by producers and fertilizer dealers. The
operator applies material over a "known area" and the
volume or weight applied is recorded to calculate an
application rate. The advantage of this technique is its
accuracy. Disadvantages are the large quantities of NH 3
needed and time required for accurate calibration. If an
error exists, it is difficult to correct the area completed
during the calibration process.
Another method, used by Moraghan (1980) and Gomes
and Loynachan (1984), was to place the individual
212

injection knives into tared plastic buckets containing water,

then discharge NH 3 for 60 to 120 s. Weight differences
were used to determine the amount discharged and the flow
rate. By measuring the application speed and swath width,
the application rate in kg-N/ha (lb-N/acre) can be
calculated. This method also determines the knife-to-knife
distribution across a swath width. Advantages are that the
method can be performed before going to the field, and
takes less NH 3 than the "known area" method.
Disadvantages are the potential danger to the operator and
the technique is not conducted under field conditions.
Numerous surveys in the United States have
investigated the application accuracy of pesticide and
chemical sprayers (Rider and Dickey, 1982; Hofman and
Hauck, 1983; Ozkans, 1987; Grisso et al., 1988; Wolak,
1989; Varner et al., 1990). These surveys found that only
25 to 35% of the applicators applied pesticides within 5%
of their intended application rate. According to these
studies, most of the errors were attributed to calibration and
tank mix errors. No similar data have been collected for
NH 3 applicators.
When calibrating liquid or granular application
equipment, it is possible to substitute a nontoxic material
(i.e., water or blank carrier) during calibration. Calibration
procedures for liquid and granular application equipment
are well documented and personal safety equipment is
relatively inexpensive. However, calibration procedures for
NH 3 applicators are not well established. Currently, mere is
no safe material with the same properties as NH 3 that can
be used to calibrate NH 3 application equipment. Thus, NH3
application equipment may be less likely to be calibrated.
To minimize application accuracy problems, "insurance N"
is often applied to guarantee that a minimum amount of N
has been applied over die treated area. This "insurance N"
can be achieved by setting me metering system 10 to 20%
greater than what is actually needed (Shapiro et al., 1992).

METHODS
An instrumented NH 3 nurse tank was developed to
measure application errors. Each observation from the
instrumented tank included an estimation of die error for a
particular combination of NH 3 applicator, tractor, and
operator.
A survey of the equipment, operator, and management
techniques was taken to determine what factors were
associated with application rate errors. The survey was
grouped into four areas: operator information, equipment
information, management practices, and site information.
Operator information included questions about the
operator's age, experience, and education. Equipment
information covered the applicator equipment, width,
tractor, and metering system. The management practices
section inquired about equipment maintenance, calibration
mediods, information used to determine application rate,
and NH 3 purchase decisions. Site information included
crop residue cover, ambient air temperature, and soil
texture.
A data acquisition system was composed of five sensors
mounted on a 3970 L (1000 gal) NH3 nurse tank to record
weight of NH 3 applied, travel speed, travel distance,
NH 3 pressure, and temperature. Sensor measurements were
recorded using a datalogging system. Details concerning
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

sensors, their accuracy, and the data acquisition system

were reported by Weber et al. (1993).
Variation of the application rate attributed to the data
acquisition system was calculated using the Taylor's
expansion series given in Mood et al. (1974). Using the
average amount applied and area covered from 61
applicators and the variation determined from calibration
of the sensors (Weber, 1993), the system was able to record
the application rate of NH 3 applicators within
3.7 kg-N/ha (2.4 lb-N/acre). The coefficient of variation
(CV) for application rate was calculated to be 3.2%.
Variables recorded by the data acquisition system were
summarized by sample averages, sample standard
deviations, and CV. Sample averages were used as point
estimators. Standard deviations were used to calculate
confidence intervals. Coefficients of variation were used as
indices of the uniformity of observations. Travel distance
and implement widths were used to calculate the total area
covered by the NH 3 applicator during the test.
Application rate error was the overall error associated
with the application of NH 3 . Application rate and travel
speed errors were determined by comparing the intended
application rate and speed with the recorded values. The
application rate and speed errors were calculated by:
Measured - Intended
e=

,
x 100

(1)

Intended
The measured application rate of nitrogen was determined
by measuring the amount of NH 3 applied (calculated from
the weight difference between the beginning and end of the
test) dividing by the area covered during the application
and multiplying by 0.82 (ratio of actual N in NH 3 ). The
measured speed was the average speed recorded during the
test.
Discharge rate error could result from inaccurately
setting the NH 3 metering device, the metering device
malfunction or restrictions to flow in the system. The
discharge rate error was not measured but was calculated
by (Weber, 1993):
(100% + e A R )x(l00% + e s )
-100%
100

(2)

where
e
NR = discharge rate error (%)
e
AR = application rate error (%)
e s = speed error (%)
To determine which type of metering system was more
accurate, a criterion was established to identify if the error
was acceptable. The acceptance criterion used in this study
was 5.6 kg-N/ha (5 lb-N/acre) up to an application rate
of 112 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) and 5% criterion for
112 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) and above. The justifications
for using this criterion were that below 112 kg-N/ha
(100 lb-N/acre) a 5% error became too restrictive for the
operator to set some types of metering systems, and for the
limited capability of the metering systems to operate
effectively at low flow rates. Typically, the metering
systems are less accurate at the low range of its operating
capacity. For example, the Hiniker Company (1984) has a
delivery system designed to work within the range of
VOL. 11(2):211-217

340 to 2724 kg-N/h (750 to 6000 lb-N/h). They state that

"lower flow rates are measurable to about 136 kg-N/h
(300 lb-N/h) with reduced accuracy".
Above 112 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) a flat application
rate difference becomes too restrictive for the equipment to
maintain an accurate speed throughout the application. It
becomes restrictive in that the margin of speed error
decreases to maintain the 5.6 kg-N/ha (5 lb-N/acre). The
limited speed range is too difficult for equipment to
maintain during application.
The criterion was expanded to a 11.2 kg-N/ha
(10 lb-N/acre) under 112 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) and
10% for 112 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) and above. This
enables another boundary region for comparison.
A t-test and F-test were conducted to determine if
differences exist between "controller" and "regulator"
metering systems. These statistical analyses were
conducted on application rate errors and application rate
differences. A chi-square analysis identified other survey
factors that were strongly associated with application rate
errors.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sixty-one applicators were observed to determine the
application rate error of NH3. The sample was composed of
44 regulators and 17 controllers. Sixty-eight percent of the
regulators were manufactured by Continental while Hiniker
manufactured 65% of the controllers sampled. The
intended application rate for most regulators (63%) was
less than 125 kg-N/ha (107 lb-N/acre) and 41% of the
controllers were used in applications over 170 kg-N/ha
(151 lb-N/acre). Both metering systems were used across a
wide range of intended application rates. The intended
application rate was significantly associated with metering
system type. Controllers were used predominantly for
higher application rates when compared to regulators.
A majority of the applicators were observed (96%)
during the sidedress and preplant periods. Sixty-one
percent of the regulators were sampled during the sidedress
period, and 82% of the controllers were observed during
preplant. This may be a reason the controllers sampled had
a significantly higher intended application rate. Greater
amounts of N are typically applied in preplant operations
whereas sidedress applications split the N application
between starter fertilizer applied during or before planting
and at sidedress.
Seventy-seven percent of all applicators were owned by
the operator. All controllers in the sample were privately
owned. Controllers require additional equipment be placed
in the tractor cab for programming and monitoring and thus
limited their use on rental units. Sixty-eight percent of the
regulators observed were privately owned.
Maintenance of metering systems include replacement
and/or cleaning of metering parts. Sixty percent of the
metering systems had not been serviced during the last two
years or the operator did not know when the servicing was
performed. Half of the regulator system operators did not
know when the units were serviced last. Sixty percent of
controller metering systems were serviced within the last
two years, but some operators (12%) did not know the last
time the metering system had been serviced.
Calibration methods were broken into three primary
methods: "weight" which uses the known area method with
213

Table 1. Statistical information on application rate error

Metering
Type

Max.
(%)

Controllers

S.D.(%)

Median
(%)

Min.

No.

(%)

Regulators

Controllers
Regulators

17
44

7.4
16.0

3.2
-3.3

25.0
46.9

-4.7
-41.0

All

61

14.3

-0.4

46.9

-41.0

o
C 20%
cr

the weight recorded from weigh scales; "percent" method

uses the known area method by estimating weight from the
percent fill gauge on the nurse tank; "formula" uses the
manufacturer's formula only. Eighty-eight percent of the
operators using of the controllers used the "weight"
method. Those using regulators used all three calibration
methods equally. There was a significant association
between calibration method and metering system type.
However, all of the calibration techniques had about the
same application accuracy.
APPLICATION RATE ERRORS

The sample was composed of 44 regulators and

17 controllers (table 1). Figure 1 shows the distributions of
the two different metering systems. The controllers had a
uni-modal distribution that was skewed to the right.
Controllers had a tendency to overapply with one system
applying in excess of 25% more than intended.
Table 1 shows that the application rate error range for
regulators was wider than the controllers. A larger standard
deviation (16%) indicates regulators were less precise at
metering than controllers with a 7.4% standard deviation.
Figure 1 suggests that regulators were less precise than
controllers.
A statistical F-test determined if "controllers" and
"regulators" variances were different. The probability that
the two variances were equal was 0.002, which means the
variances were significantly different. The t-test showed a
significant difference [P(Test statistic > t) = 0.04] between
types of metering systems.
APPLICATION RATE DIFFERENCE

Controllers had an average application rate difference

(a difference between the measured and intended
application rate) of 6.2 kg-N/ha (5.5 lb-N/acre) while the
regulators averaged -2.6 kg-N/ha (-2.3 lb-N/acre). Again,

H Controllers
p^] Regulators

LL

Application Rate Difference (kg-N/ha)

Figure 2-Application rate difference distributions for controller and
regulator metering systems.

there was a visual difference between the standard

deviation, range, and distribution (fig. 2). The controller
deviations were smaller than the regulators, showing a
more precise distribution (table 2). The mean and median
were identical for the regulators. Figure 2 shows that
controller systems have a tendency to overapply.
According to statistical F-test analysis, the variances of
the "controllers" and "regulators" metering systems were
the same [P(Test statistic > F) = 0.14] for application rate
differences. Assuming the variances were equal, the
population means were compared. The t-test analysis
indicated that a significant difference [P(Test statistic > t)
= 0.0688] exists between the metering systems.
From the statistical tests conducted, it was concluded
that "controllers" and "regulators" metering systems were
different at the 0.10 alpha-level.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERION

Using the acceptance criterion, 36% of all applicators

were doing an acceptable application while 30% of the
applicators underapplied NH 3 and 34% overapplied. The
regulators (fig. 3) had 27% within the acceptance region,
while controllers had 59% (fig. 4). Below 112 kg-N/ha
(100 lb-N/acre), 33% of the controllers were acceptable,
and 35% of the regulators were acceptable. For
112 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) and above, 64% of the
controllers were acceptable compared to 2 1 % of the
regulators. The regulators had application errors that were
unacceptable both over and under the acceptance region;
while the controllers had application error only above the
acceptable region. Using the acceptance criterion, it was
concluded that the controller metering systems were more
accurate than regulator metering systems.
If the boundary was expanded to 11.2 kg-N/ha
(10 lb-N/acre) and 10%, 82% of the controllers and
59% of the regulators were applying within the expanded
Table 2. Statistical information on application rate difference

&

9?

$>

.^AoS"

<>

<$> (P

Application Error (%)

Figure 1-AppIication error distributions for regulators and
controller metering systems.
214

Metering
Type

No.

SX).
(kg-N/ha)

Median
(kg-N/ha)

Max.
(kg-N/ha)

Min.
(kg-N/ha)

Controllers
Regulators

17
44

12.9
18.0

3.9
-2.6

46.2
31.5

-9.5
-57.4

All

61

17.1

-0.4

46.2

-57.4

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

Unacceptable Error
O

CO

O /

yr

Acceptable Error

Acceptance Criterion

6/*

Expanded

CD

8
A

150

DL

O
'

<
a

CD 100

ps

A>6
O

//Q

o
o

_y%6_

-J

50

100

150

200

250

Intended App. Rate (kg-N/ha)

Figure 3-Measured vs. intended application rate and acceptance

region for the regulator metering systems. Those outside the solid
lines did not meet the acceptance criterion.

boundary. Eighteen percent of the controllers and 23% of

the regulators overapplied the expanded boundary, while
23% of the regulators underapplied.
INFLUENCE OF OTHER FACTORS

The chi-square analysis showed that only two variables

were strongly associated with application rate error. These
variables were "type of metering system" and "discharge
rate error". None of the other variables tested were found
significant (0.10 alpha-level), but frequency tables and
discussion of these survey factors can be found in Weber
(1993). Metering systems were strongly associated because
a higher percentage of controllers occurred in the
acceptable region than what the chi-square analysis
expected. Regulators had a higher percentage occurring in
the unacceptable region, but were close to the expected chisquare values.
Discharge rate errors were divided into < 5% and > 5%
error regions. Systems with acceptable application rate
error had significantly smaller (< 5%) discharge rate error.
Applicators with an unacceptable application rate error had

large discharge rate error (> 5%). When the chi-square

analysis was separated by the type of metering system, the
discharge rate error was strongly associated with
controllers but not regulators. Controllers had a higher
percentage with acceptable application rate error and small
discharge rate error (< 5%). Conversely, applicators using
controllers in the unacceptable region had large discharge
rate error (> 5%). Thus, a controller with an unacceptable
application rate error had a very high probability that the
metering system malfunctioned, was assembled
incorrectly, or information was incorrectly entered into the
control console. Application rate errors did not show an
association with discharge rate error for regulators.
Although, over half of the applicators that had
unacceptable error also had large discharge rate error
(> 5%).
The chi-square analysis showed that to have a high
probability of having an acceptable application rate error, a
controller metering system operating within a 5%
discharge rate error was needed.
SPEED AND DISCHARGE RATE ERRORS

Speed and discharge rate error can influence the

application rate error. These errors were evaluated based
on the type of metering system. Controllers measure the
speed and flow rate and changes the flow rate to maintain
near the operators intended application rate. Since it was
assumed that regulators do not change discharge rates
significantly during application, a speed error would have a
direct effect on application rate error.
The average speed error for regulators was - 2.8%. This
would mean, on the average, the applicator's speed was
slower than intended and should result in overapplication.
However, the average discharge rate error was - 4.6%
which is an underapplication. Indicating the regulators was
set too low.
For regulators the speed and discharge rate error
distributions were uni-modal and skewed to the right
(fig. 5). The discharge rate error range was approximately
twice the speed error range. The discharge rate error was
influenced by outliers that may have been due to
mechanical factors such as stuck valves, worn holes in
pressure regulating diaphragms, operator being unfamiliar
with the metering system, or the operator selecting the

Unacceptable Error
O
CO
JZ

2 200
D)

Speed Error
Discharge Rate Error

Expanded

CD
|

Acceptable Error
Acceptance Criterion

150

Q.
Q.

<

7^
CO
CD

I I I I I
50

100

150

200

250

Intended App. Rate (kg-N/ha)

.?

<

<?

$>

< .< ,

&

NVO^

*>

< *

&

<

<p *

t?

<$>

* <$>

Error (%)

Figure 4-Measured vs. intended application rate and acceptance

region for the controller metering systems. Those outside the solid
lines did not meet the acceptance criterion.
VOL. 11(2):211-217

Figure 5-Speed and discharge rate error distribution for regulator

metering systems.
215

wrong setting. Variability in discharge error may have been

due to the large gradients on the regulators setting dial.
Most regulated metering systems have gradients of
113.5 kg-N/h (250 lb-N/h) making precise adjustments
difficult. The discharge rate error was a function of both
human and equipment error.
The speed error distribution for both metering systems
had a small standard deviation. This can be attributed to the
increase in technology for measuring speed such as the use
of radar, ultrasonic, or nondrive wheel sensors. The outlier
(fig. 5) for speed error is probably due to a calibration error
of the applicator's speed sensors.
Controllers had an average discharge rate error of 4.3%.
Figure 6 shows that the controllers were functioning well
in responding to the speed variation throughout the field.
If the speed CV during a field observation was over
10%, the variation could have a significant effect on the
NH 3 application. The speed CV is directly related to the
application distribution across the field. Regulator systems
try to maintain a constant output of material flow, therefore
a 10% variation in speed may lead to a variation in
application rate across the field. Controllers adjust the flow
for the variation in speed, but a high variability in speed
may still cause nonuniform application. This nonuniform
application may be caused by the response time for the
controller. Sixty-five percent of all applicators had speed
CVs below 10%.

precision, it was concluded that the controllers were more

accurate than regulators.
Factors that influenced the application rate error were
type of metering system and discharge rate error. To have a
high probability of having an acceptable application rate
error, a controller metering system operating within a small
(5%) discharge rate error was needed.
The most popular (53%) calibration technique was the
measured weight difference over a known area. The other
two calibration methods used were "percent" of tank
applied over a known area and the manufacturer's
calibration formula for setting the metering system. Most
operators of controllers (88%) used the measured weight
method. While operators using regulators used all three
calibration methods equally. All of the calibration
techniques had about the same application accuracy.
The authors would like to
acknowledge the National Fertilizer and Environmental
Research Center of the Tennessee Valley Authority for
their financial support. Special thanks are also extended to
Double Circle Farm Supply, Laurel, Nebraska; Aurora
CO-OP Elevator Company, Aurora, Nebraska; Shane
Fertilizer, Atkinson, Nebraska; the NH 3 operators and the
many Nebraska Extension Educators who helped locate
them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS
Sixty-one applicators were observed to determine the
application rate error of NH 3 . The two types of metering
systems observed were "controllers" and "regulators".
Seventeen controllers was significantly different from the
44 regulators.
The acceptance criterion for application rate error was
5.6 kg-N/ha (5 lb-N/acre) for application rates below
112.1 kg-N/ha (100 lb-N/acre) and 5% above application
rates of 112.1 k g - N / h a (100 lb-N/acre). From this
acceptance criterion, the 17 controllers had 59% within the
acceptance region while 44 regulators had 27%. All
controllers outside the acceptance region overapplied,
while regulators had 32% overapplied and 41% underapplied. From the acceptance criterion and the difference in

Speed Error
Discharge Rate Error

S?
vO

1 1 1 1 1-

f>
-O

>
,0

!$> #
.O

<

,>

>V\oV
*.*(

Jl? #
,-P

-<P

*>
."P

<?
,-P

^
* < <
Error (%)

#
,*P

<J>

Agri-Chemicals. 1985. Material safety data sheet. Anhydrous

Ammonia. Atlanta, Ga.: Division of United States Steel.
ASAE Standards, 34th Ed. 1987. S327.1. Terminology and
definitions for agricultural chemical application. St. Joseph,
Mich.: ASAE.
Exner, M. E. and R. F. Spalding. 1990. Occurrence of pesticides
and nitrate in Nebraska ground water. Lincoln: Water Center,
Inst, of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Univ. of Nebraska.
Gomes, S. L. and T. E. Loynachan. 1984. Nitrification of
anhydrous ammonia related to nitrapyrin and time-temperature
interactions. Agron. J. 76(1):9-12.
Grisso, R. D., E. J. Hewett, E. C. Dickey, R. D. Schnieder and
E. W. Nelson. 1988. Calibration of pesticide application
equipment. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 4(4):310-315.
Hiniker Company. 1984. Hiniker anhydrous ammonia monitoring
and control system, operator's manual. FN 523 8-84. Mankato,
Minn.: Hiniker Press.
Hoeft, R. G. and J. C. Siemens. 1975. Do fertilizers waste energy?
Crops and Soils November: 12-14.
Hofman, V. and D. Hauck. 1983. Sprayer check in North Dakota.
ASAE Paper No. NCR-83-405. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
John Blue Inc. 1981. Guide for the accurate metering of anhydrous
ammonia in cold weather. Pub. #JB-AA-GUIDE Huntsville,
Ala.
Madison, R. J. and J. O. Brunett. 1985. Overview of the
occurrence of nitrate in ground water of the United States. In
USGS National Water Summary 1984,93-105. U.S. Geol.
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2275. Washington, D.C.
Mood, A. M., F. A. Graybill and D. C. Boes. 1974. Introduction
the Theory of Statistics, 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill Book
Co.
Moraghan, J. T. 1980. Precautions on the use of anhydrous
ammonia applicators in research plots. Agron. J. 72(1): 157-160
Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture. 1991-1992 Nebraska Agricultural
Statistics. Lincoln: Nebr. Dept. of Agriculture.

Figure 6-Speed and discharge rate error distribution for controller

metering systems.
216

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

Nielsen, E. G. and L. K. Lee. 1986. The magnitude and costs of

groundwater contamination from agricultural chemicals: A
national perspective. Washington, D.C.: USDA-Econ. Res.
Serv., Nat. Res. Econ. Kiv., Staff Rept. AGES70318.
Ozkans, H. E. 1987. Sprayer performance evaluation with
microcomputers. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 3(1): 3641.
Quirin, N. L. and W. Wells. 1968. Anhydrous ammonia
equipment. In Proc. ofAgric. Workshops on Anhydrous
Ammonia, 15-16,25 July. Lincoln, Nebr.
Rider, A. R. and E. C. Dickey. 1982. Field evaluation of
calibration for pesticide application equipment. Transactions of
theASAE 25(2):258-260.
Shapiro, C. A., R. W. Weber, W. L. Kranz and R. D. Grisso. 1992.
In-field determination of anhydrous ammonia applicators in
Nebraska. In Proc. North Central Extension!Industry Soil
Fertility Conf., St. Louis, Mo.

VOL. 11(2):211-217

Varner, D. L., R. D. Grisso and R. C. Shearman. 1990. Calibration

of golf course pesticide applicators. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture 6(4):405-411.
Weber, R. W. 1993. Accuracy of anhydrous ammonia application.
Unpub. M.S. thesis, Biological Systems Engineering Dept.,
Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Weber, R. W., R. D. Grisso, W. L. Kranz, C. A. Shapiro and J. L.
Schinstock. 1993. Instrumenting a nurse tank for monitoring
anhydrous ammonia application. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 9(3): 133-142.
Wolak, F. J. 1989. Pesticide application survey in South Carolina.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 5(4):514-516.

217