Fertilization and nutrient management trials in peanut


Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia on behalf of the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service and University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

Budget ID:


Project ID:


Report BID:




Southeast (GA, FL, AL)

State Group:


Project Fiscal Year:




Report Type:

Report Received Date:



Project NPB Budget:


While supplying calcium to the pegging zone of peanuts continues to be an important ongoing pursuit of this research program, the importance of micronutrients such as boron, manganese, nickel and copper for peanut production is now also being investigated. Boron is of particular interest to seed companies and the peanut snack industry since boron deficiency can lead to internal damage called "hollow heart". How prevalent hollow heart is and if the current recommendations for boron fertilization are adequate are the main questions. Hollow heart was detected in one out of 4 studies in this first year of testing where B treatments seemed to affect the result. Manganese deficiency also seems fairly prevalent in Georgia peanuts, especially later in the season, so testing the current recommendations of where to maintain soil pH and soil test manganese levels to avoid manganese deficiency is also be investigated. First year results indicate that the recommendations are accurate. Nickel and copper deficiencies are not thought to be rare in Georgia peanuts but nonetheless there is interest is applying these micronutrients to Georgia peanuts. There was no yield response detected when using nickel or copper in this first year of testing,. Finally, gypsum at bloomtime and lime at planting are still the traditional and best ways of fertilizing peanut with calcium. Two new gypsum materials ( a humic coated product and a product from Colorado that supposedly comes from over a "thermal vent" and is more available than other gypsums were compared to the commonly used "smokestack gypsum. A "50/50" lime gypsum combination product and a low rate of foliar calcium were also tested. There was no significant difference between gypsum materials, the lime/gypsum combo appeared adequate and the low rate of foliar calcium was ineffective in this first year of testing. 

Click to Download

You must be logged in to view this item.

This area is reserved for members of the news media. If you qualify, please update your user profile and check the box marked "Check here to register as an accredited member of the news media". Please include any notes in the "Supporting information for media credentials" box. We will notify you of your status via e-mail in one business day.