|
ecmn | Still waiting on my first three statements to get answered.
A pound of fertilizer at the cheapest rate is not always the best return on investment. It is not always the best economical or agronomic fertilizer plan.
For example The potassium acetate I use is about $3.79 a pound of potassium. Potassium chloride is about $0.48 per pound.
$10 of acetate replaced $25 of Kcl. And it gives a better crop response.
So you're going to stand there and tell us that no matter what fertilizer you apply there is no difference in uptake efficiency based upon the quality of fertilizer, there's no difference in fertilizer, uptake efficiency based upon the parent material that's in the soil, the weather, the organic matter, the tillage practice, the chemical practice, timing, placement, quality of fertilizer used. Your that is the rock you're standing on?
If somebody wants to claim that there's no difference in fertilizers. Then you need to cite the data. Because I can show the links if you really want to. But the reply gets really long. Kansas state has four good articles, Iowa has four good articles, University of Minnesota has three good resources, Penn State has a really nice one that comes from more of the regulatory nutrient management out there,
The common thread to all of them at University papers is that soil test, soil type, timing, placement, type of fertilizer used all of them. Things affect how many pounds of fertilizer you need to apply to meet your demand. And all of them articles reiterate the fact that all fertilizers react differently in the soil from each other
The article states that there's hundreds of replicated studies out there showing no difference between a poly and an orthophosphate. But it doesn't cite a single one. A scientific claim without citing the research isn't evidence. It's an opinion dressed up as authority.
Yes, Ortho and Polly end up as the same ion. Nobody disputes that. Agronomy isn't about what happens eventually. It's about what happens when the plant needs it in the soil conditions it's actually growing in
And if we're meeting the plants needs the yield should not differ. The plant got what the plant needed. The difference is the agronomy of how much fertilizer was applied.
We're not arguing chemistry. We agree on that. But I will and have defended my stance that real world efficiency and agronomy very widely through different fertilizers.
We're not arguing yield. We both agree that as long as you're not running a deficiency, your yield should stay the same.
Like I said, if you want a link to every one of them articles just let me know and I'll flood the page with articles that scientifically back up what I am saying
| |
|
So what has worked. World of biologicals. So what’s worked.
