|
Southeast WI | "Outside of deficiency and not talking probability answer these questions please"
To start off i dont understand what "outside of deficiency" means in your question. If a crop is deficient there is a high probability you will see a yield response by adding those deficient nutrients. We can only speak probability because sometimes when roots explore more soil volume as they get bigger or if its dry and then wet the plant basically rights the ship as it finds adequate levels of nutrients. This is not unusual unless the soil test levels are v low. Then you can see season long deficiency.
My question revolved around what land grants use for sufficiency at a specific stage. There's research behind this. When I've had plants test in the sufficient range I've never had deficient symptoms. To push yields higher my question was are these levels truly "sufficient" or do we need to add more fertilizer? Or have better soil biology to achieve this?
I have baseline numbers from my trials. I will organize that data as time allows and show my homework. These baseline numbers all fall within the sufficiency ranges of the land grants as long as applied Nitrogen is adequate to very high. There is a very wide range where nutrients can be and still get very good yields so that is why probability of a yield response is used as soil test levels go higher or lower from the "optimum" level which can be seen as economically optimum.
You state foliar K is always a winner - how are you determining that?
Part of my question was are there better times to be tissue sampling than the R1/halftime checkup. I got a word salad of responses but nothing that is useful. At no time was I asking about applying nutrients. This is just establishing a baseline so I know where I am now and what it would take to implement a system to see if we get a yield response.
| |
|
Corn Tissue Analysis Numbers - Take 2 - Sufficiency @ VT-R1
