|
West Michigan | So there are two main points I would disagree with.
1. Calling point samples grid. What you are doing is taking point samples not grid. In my mind a grid is a area you sample not a point. Composite samples are better than point in my mind. You seem to be saying that the zone or grid is variable so why even try to come up with an average of the zone or grid and just pick a spot and go with it. I can pick zones out by yield that are similar and then take a composite sample. Is there variability in the zone, sure there is, but not as much as between the points on a point map that is choosen by random.
2. Correlation of yield to P&K levels. To start out who knows where it is at but if you get it leveled out the P&K have a direct correlation IMO and many others. Removal rates are pretty well documented by many.
I base almost everything off yield to make zones. Soil types show up on the yield maps. We do look at the soil type map as a reference but not really using it to make the zones. | |
|
grid sampling ? again
