4.  Field 1 › No noticeable effects of application on plant height or color › No Difference in treated vs. untreated plots  Field 2 › There was a significant difference in plot appearance based on rate and source of S product  All plots receiving AMS were not affected  Plots receiving the 30 lb S/A and 45 lb S/A as ATS were visibly “burned” or yellowed by application

5. These plots received the 30 and 45 lb S/A rate as ATS and were visibly yellow due to application. Similar results were seen in all 4 reps at this site.

8. All plots receiving S looked good. The plot that did not receive S was noticeable deficient.

10. S deficient plot in foreground, with S addition plots behind.

11.  Field 1 › No noticeable difference in plant height or color among treatments receiving S › Some minor S deficiency symptoms appearing in the plots that received no S applications  Field 2 › No noticeable difference in plant height or color among treatments receiving S › Major S deficiency symptoms appearing in the plots that received no S applications

12.  Early in the season ATS products appeared to burn leaves when applied at rates of 30 and 45 lb S/A  There was no noticeable affect of AMS application at any rate  Wheat grew out of early season symptoms  Both products appear to be adequate at providing S to wheat  Plant samples will be taken 8 WAT to determine S tissue concentration and total S uptake near Early Heading