c Es , CROPS GBFFING END Bet ae ee eee eee eee eer nr ers Pa as nee aed aeBack in 1960s and ‘70s, few farmers in the fest went out of their way to include Aa ae Nene eee eee agronomists rarely recommended it. And few soil or plant-tssue somples indicated a need eee But today, progressive farmers are re-evaluating their need for sulphur—or what many agron ea eee et Sa eee eet ay a eed yield, quality or protein content. Nor can they ae Pee echt ae In addition, research has shown that feeding sulphur-deficient hay can limit production in eee egy Oe ite eee ee eee en response can be obtained from a sulphur eae ee Oe cM ee eaWhy the growing interest? Sulphur'simportones in crop and livestock production is not something new. Bun ecant yeas, record yields ond more intensive lond vie—olong wih the absence of sulphur in today's highonahsis NP feriizrs—have caused $ efciencios io appear where they have not before. In action, the heavier farm equipment used today may ere tte hard traffic pans on sel, which mpedes ond sometimes even prevents crops fom topping rch sulphur reserves in the subsoil. The addition of new “sulphurhungiy” rope such os canola may oso couse more sols o run short on sulphu Polltion-control regulations have also caused marked reductions in the amount of “ree” S that crops receive from the almosphere For many years, smokestack industies ond uilties throughout he region emited significant omounts of S in the form of sulphur dioxde. Cleans regulations enacted since 1970 have reduced this source of “fes’ sulphur by ot leas! one-hicd—and mote reductions ore ontcjoated. For example: New cleanait laws sipuiae that highsuiphut dese fuel be limited to offzood use only. In adliion, the EPA hos proposed « 70 percent, or 120,000%0n, cut in emissions from pulp and paper mills by 1998. These develooments vl eventually requir sulphur supplements in many fields