Dave-ECIA - 12/8/2009 11:25

Well, not looking at the same thing. Table (1) is the summary of tables (2) and (3). For the purpose of discussion, stay on table (1), for the overall picture it has the all the data on it. Tables (2) and (3) are interesting because they show the data from the two root digs in July and August.

I think what is significant in the 2nd article I posted is a little more into the statistics.

In the Dekalb trial, they had heavy rootworm pressure. Look at the untreated checks, lost three nodes pretty consistently. In that trial, Poncho1250 lost 2.85 nodes. I'd say that isn't a significant improvement.

Now, I wasn't really trying to make the distinction that HXX is better/different than YGVT, I was trying to say that seed treatment is just a little better than peeing on the rootworm larvae, and the data as I rememberd it showed that YGVT is a little weaker on RW because of the continued feeding and adding a little "help" couldn't hurt. I re-read my other post and can see where one may infer that. Wasn't my intention.


Here goes, since it was brought up. HXX had an average node loss of 0.88 at the Dekalb location on the first dig, and 0.82 on the second dig. YGVT had an average node loss of 1.15 on the first dig, and 1.49 on the second. In other words, under heavy pressure at the Dekalb trial location YGVT lost an average of .27 of a node more than HXX at the evaluation on the first dig, and 0.67 nodes at the second dig. Notice the feeding continued with YGVT? They discuss it more at the end of the article, but is important to note.