C.O.R.N. Newsletter 2011-13

We have written articles regarding this subject in the past (here), and the one thing we stress is to use your knowledge of the soil/plant system to determine if the claim being made makes any agronomic sense.  While I will not go so far as to say that the university is the all-knowing entity regarding every product, products marketed without independent testing should automatically be viewed with caution.  Some practices (regardless how weird) may have some legitimacy to them, but the question is – will the observed benefit occur frequently enough to be a viable option for your operation?  Extension researchers generally do not recommend products or practices that do not have a high probability of predictability and or repeatability.

When approached with a practice or product to adopt, first ask for data to substantiate the claim.  Anecdotal data should be viewed with caution, if not disregarded completely.  Most can tell a good story about what the practice or product does, but without some solid scientific data you should be skeptical.  If it does not make agronomic sense, then you will know not to proceed.   Solid scientific data refers to a study completed by a respected researcher with a properly designed experiment.  A properly designed experiment would contain replications, necessary control treatments (checks), and statistical analysis of the data. Often product literature shows marketing data and not research data (marketing data is slanted to sell a product or concept and conveniently leaves out research that would diminish interest in the product or concept).  Marketing data is generally correct but does not tell the whole story and often leaves out important research observations. In addition, marketing data may have a university name associated with it but not the researcher’s name.

We have contacted some of the institutions listed with the marketing data to talk with the researcher and have often found out that it was a study in progress, or an unfunded proposal (no research completed) or the marketing benefit does not match the data (for example, product works but only when rates are above a certain value). If a company has a legitimate product, they should be able to fund a study with a respected researcher in one of the land grant institutions of the 12 Corn Belt States growing corn, soybeans or wheat.

Let’s look at an example of a product and practice being discussed in many parts of Ohio. Sugar is being promoted for a myriad of benefits for a crop.  It is claimed that the sugar is a source of carbon and that it will stabilize nitrogen.  First think of this from a plant physiological standpoint, how do crops take up carbon?  Unlike animals, plants do not get carbon from ingesting other carbon sources.  Plants take carbon right out of the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, so supplementing a crop with a sugar based carbon source does not make physiological sense. Will the carbon in the sugar stabilize nitrogen?  Actually it can, but you may not get the desired effect.  Application of such an easily mineralized carbon source can actually result in a short-term tie up of soil solution nitrogen (called immobilization).  Since the sugar application rate is quite small, this will likely be a very short-term effect, but there will also be very little in the way of long-term effects.  The previous example tells a good story that appears logical, but when we think about it, it does not make agronomic sense. And the main caution flag, no solid scientific data. Thus a producer should not expect a benefit from using sugar to stabilize nitrogen.

To inform producers about various non-traditional products, university research and extension soil fertility specialists in the Corn Belt also maintain a data base on non-traditional ag products (Ohio State University participates with this committee). The criteria to be included in the data base follows these guidelines: 1) at least two site-years of research, with multiple crops or varieties substituting for a site-year; 2) authors listed; 3) replicated with statistical analysis; 4) reasonably applicable to north central USA crop production; 5) reference source available; and 6) author permission. These are also good guidelines for a producer to consider for legitimacy of a non-traditional product. The web site is located at http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/compendium/index.aspx . Please contact Ed Lentz or Robert Mullen for more information about this committee. If you would like to evaluate a non-traditional product, contact your county Extension Agriculture Educator to set up an on-farm experiment.

In summary consider these three points with non-traditional products:

1. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This old adage is almost always true. So if something is promising tremendous yield improvements by supplying adequate nutrition, suppressing weeds, improving soil health with a small application rate, it is most likely not going to deliver the desired benefits.

2. Look for unbiased research results. Many products are vetted through land-grant universities to determine their potential usefulness. Just because a product works at some remote location does not necessarily mean it will work on your farm (this is why land-grant universities conduct field research). If the individual selling you the product is also the individual conducting the research be wary.  

3. Before completely adopting an alternative product to be used on the entire farm, evaluate the product on a limited basis and make simple comparisons to current practices. If you see no yield advantages, you have your answer.