|
Coldwater, Michigan | In the comparisons I reported, the 10-34-0 was used at 15 gallons/acre. That is part of why with the small yield difference in favor of the 6-24-6 it showed better than the 10-34-0. With 15 gallons of 10-34-0 the cost was totally against it compared to the 6-24-6 @ 5 gallons. Of course the 10-34-0 was placed 2" x 2" at 15 gallons/acre, and the 6-24-6 was seed placed @ 5 gallons/acre.
In answer to your question about 6-24-6 @ 5 gallon in seed furrow vs 10-34-0 @ 5 gallons in seed furrow: With only limited data in Michigan over 3 years the difference on average was 5.3 BPA in favor of the 6-24-6. If you are willing to look at data by my then counterparts across the river: They had 18 years of data, at the time, with 171 Replications showing a difference of 6.7 BPA in favor of the 6-24-6 when comparing the 2 treatments @ 5 gallons/acre on the seed.
If you consider the yield difference, and the price difference of the 2 products with essentially no moisture difference ( 0.1% in favor of the 6-24-6), it certainly puts the 6-24-6 in a very favorable position. Remember these are just Average differences. There are of course times when 10-34-0 did win the replication against the 6-24-6. We also need to realize not all 6-24-6 is created equal. In 4 years of trials, with 28 replications, there was a difference of 3.9 BPA with the 6-24-6 I wqs working with vs the 6-24-6 that a major regional retailer in this area was selling. The better one was also 0.9% drier than the major retailer's version. Add the dollars up at today's prices and it makes their version somewhat expensive (even though it sold for $1.25/acre cheaper at the time - $2.00 corn). Their product often lost to the no starter treatment.
This why I try to refer to a "good 6-24-6" when making recommendations for that analysis.
| |
|
liquid fertilizer
