USA | GregWCIL - 12/8/2018 15:00
Again, you are confusing what the percentages mean. They chose a rate where 75% of the samples contained the same or less P and K. That rate was about 86% of the old rec. I do agree they did not use the average (about 50% level). Looking at the graph, that isn’t a major difference in rate. But it does look like a safe bet to include rates that don’t deplete our soils.
For those of us who are shooting for top yields, the difference in P and K cost is a very small percent of our costs.
http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/?p=3967
If you look @ bar graph for P and look @ where majority of samples take place, are between .32 and.36. Weighted ave of these are..34 There is a big drop off on either side of this group in the bar graph. Why is data that isn't close to were majority of samples are grouped even used to come to a gray hazy type conclusion.
The report says the reason for using 75% of tests , even though when looking @ data presented" Is to be on the safe side." Tells me testing of grain samples should have been continued to come up more concrete numbers.
This is one those fox guarding hen house deals when it comes to wanting to know and reveal the truth.
I know a lot farmers whose Dap and Potash rates could be reduced by 20=25% and they will still be applying more than what the 75% numbers are |
What’s it cost to put in an acre of corn?
