Viewing a thread - Reduced Rates of Fertilizer

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts	View previous thread :: View next thread
Forums List -> Crop Talk	Message format

GTD

Posted 7/29/2006 10:51 (#30874 - in reply to #30839)
Subject: RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - plot data

Effingham, IL

I think you have summed it up pretty well.

In regards to #3, in our situation, we broadcast apply P (if needed) and K in front of beans. Our potassium levels are just too low to do without it.

In response to your question of what will happen in 10-50 yrs.: I would not reduce rates more than 15-20% when banding. I think one could argue that the greater efficiancy would allow for a small reduction. Anything more than that would be detrimental to yield over the long term.

Google "banded fertilizer". You'll find a wealth of information on the topic.

Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - GTD : 7/28/2006 01:01
- RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - theory-fact-doubt - Ron..NE ILL..10/48 : 7/28/2006 06:37
  - Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Bill Moyer : 7/28/2006 15:40
    - Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - GTD : 7/28/2006 17:35
    - Re: P is mobile, albeit slowly - mhagny : 7/28/2006 23:35
      - Re: P is mobile, albeit slowly - Bill Moyer : 7/29/2006 00:58
        
        And a look in the other direction. - Hay Wilson in TX : 7/30/2006 14:37
  - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - theory-fact-doubt - GTD : 7/28/2006 17:31
    - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - theory-fact-doubt - mhagny : 7/29/2006 10:44
  - I have my doubts that stripped fert is anymore avail. than broadcast. - Harpo : 7/28/2006 21:05
    - Well Yes and No, A lot depends--- - Hay Wilson in TX : 7/29/2006 13:43
- RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - M : 7/28/2006 08:34
  - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Mark : 7/28/2006 09:56
    - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - mhagny : 7/28/2006 10:39
      - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - robaer1 : 7/28/2006 11:03
      - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Mark : 7/28/2006 17:17
    - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - pat-michigan : 7/28/2006 16:36
      - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Mark : 7/28/2006 20:24
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - mhagny : 7/28/2006 23:19
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - Mark : 7/29/2006 10:10
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - mhagny : 7/29/2006 11:04
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - Mark : 7/29/2006 19:37
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - mhagny : 7/30/2006 10:14
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - Mark : 7/30/2006 16:01
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - Mark : 7/31/2006 00:31
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - mhagny : 7/31/2006 09:07
        
        RE: review of research on soil OM changes - mhagny : 7/31/2006 09:18
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer -- Mark, Pat - pat-michigan : 7/29/2006 11:49
        
        RE: biological vs chemical view of soil fertility - mhagny : 7/30/2006 10:19
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - wolf : 7/29/2006 18:07
        
        RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Mark : 7/29/2006 19:11
        
        RE: cover crop rye - mhagny : 7/30/2006 10:25
        
        Mark - Dave Cen.Ia : 7/30/2006 12:43
        RE: cover crop rye - Mark : 7/30/2006 16:21
  - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - GTD : 7/28/2006 17:41
- RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - plowboy : 7/28/2006 13:42
  - The way the "70%" was explained to me was.......... - jakescia : 7/28/2006 14:30
    - RE: The way the "70%" was explained to me was.......... - John Burns : 7/28/2006 23:42
- RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - york : 7/29/2006 02:27
- RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - plot data - Ron..NE ILL..10/48 : 7/29/2006 08:09
  - Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Greywolf : 7/29/2006 09:14
    - Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Ron..NE ILL..10/48 : 7/29/2006 09:57
      - Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Bill Moyer : 7/29/2006 10:21
  - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - plot data - GTD : 7/29/2006 10:51
  - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - plot data - Gary, Eastern Iowa : 7/29/2006 13:04
    - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - plot data - John Burns : 7/29/2006 22:48
    - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - plot data - mhagny : 7/30/2006 10:34
    - RE: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - Gary's links above - Ron..NE ILL..10/48 : 7/30/2006 11:08
      - Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Greywolf : 7/30/2006 13:39
        
        Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Ron..NE ILL..10/48 : 7/30/2006 15:00
        
        Re: Reduced Rates of Fertilizer - In reference to Ron's posts - Greywolf : 7/30/2006 16:20

Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)