|
Lancaster, OH | Biologicals as a class will provide positive results in the neighborhood of 55-60% of the time. Inoculants on legumes are higher than that but growth promoters as a group generally are not. That is why you find a lot of guys who say they have seen nothing (maybe there was, maybe there wasn't or the result was small) while another saw something phenominal.
I just got done compiling what we have and two years of replicated testing over 26 different locations across the midwest showed an average positive response of +7.1 bushels showing that response 62% of the time. That is about a 23:1 return on investment overall. In wheat the same product showed an average advantage of over 4 bushels with about a 17:1 ROI and a winning percentage of 67%.
In some years, these products, as a group, perform at a very high level and, in other years, not so much. For example, this product above showed a positive response in soybeans and corn 100% and 90%, respectively, in 2014 but not that high in 2015.
You have to ask, "What am I trying to accomplish?" Some products improve root growth, some shoot growth, the one above, nitrogen uptake and utilization. Some provide particular growth promotion directly, others indirectly through excretions from bacteria.
The biggest problem in this area is that there is no regulation around claims of performance. Therefore, folks that suffer from a lack of integrity enter the market knowing that anytime a guy does a side by side, a product that does nothing will win 50% of the time--why not get some money?
Determine what thing you want to address to improve your crop's performance, find products that influence that aspect and ask for lots of data from replicated, third party sources including but not limited to universities.
Edited by JimmyP 2/22/2016 13:37
| |
|
Any biological success stories?
