(Note: The Fall issue of the AgroLiquid Quarterly Newsletter just came out. However there was an error in my article where for some reason the correct picture was not included in the article. So my descriptions in the article are not clear for the pictures that were printed. So here is the article in its original form for those that don’t know what I am talking about. Which is a common occurrence, but this time I had an excuse.)
The recently completed Research Field Days showed AgroLiquid fertilizers in action. Well maybe action is a little strong, but results of the use of AgroLiquid were clearly on display in many venues. Take, for instance, one of the research plot stops on Farm 7. Several different corn fertilizer applications were on display. There were full rate conventional fertilizer programs for potash/10-34-0/28% plus an all dry treatment. There was the comparable AgroLiquid treatment along with a treatment with conventional fertilizers, but at a greatly reduced rate of application to closely match that of the AgroLiquid program. And then there was a nitrogen only treatment, so that the effects of the P and K fertilizers could be measured. The same treatments were applied last year in this experiment as well, but in the adjacent test to enable a corn-soybean rotation. On the field day itself, I went into the border rows for these treatments and pulled three adjacent ears as well as some roots that were dug. They are on display in the picture, along with the yields from 2013 and then the pounds of N-P2O5-K2O for each treatment. (Note: in the conventional treatments, two years worth of potash is applied after the previous soybean crop for the next year of corn and then the following soybean crop.)
There is certainly a visual difference in the ears. The full rate conventional and AgroLiquid ears are all larger than those of the N only treatment (4). Furthermore, the ears of the AgroLiquid treatment (5) are also much larger than the low rate conventional treatment (1), even though virtually the same rates of fertility was applied. So I guess the adage: It’s nutrients, not numbers rings true here. The nutrient technology used to make AgroLiquid more efficient is clearly seen. The roots also showed the Liquid advantage for a larger root system to better explore the soil. Furthermore, the yield in 2013 with AgroLiquid was greater with AgroLiquid vs all programs, but especially vs the equal rate of conventional. So let advanced nutrient technology be your guide in 2015. Higher yields with lower rates (more acres planted between fill-ups) and planter applied P and K to save trips. Of course the plot harvest coming up later will complete the story. But indications are strong for AgroLiquid. So when making decisions for next year, don’t cut what is research-proven for higher yield.