How low can wheat go?

Originally posted by Glyco ↑

Thanks @natandsal,

From the ann, looks like more than a single plant was trialed,

"..GPP subjected coal from the Gippsland Basin in Victoria to the OHD process and the resulting bio-stimulant fertiliser liquid was applied to test crops at application rates of five litres per hectare up to 70 litres per hectare.

OHD usage confirmed to increase wheat yields by 300% utilising OHD rates in a range between 5 litres and 35 litres per hectare.

The other factor which is important in terms of wheat production is the number of heads of wheat per plant...."

-----------

YIELD:
i must agree with you, even if Gpp OHD can do only 30%, instead of 300%,
it will be very impressive.

For e.g.,

Well established European bio-stimulant producer Valagro's new product YieldON can increase yield by only 15%.

Even that makes its GM-Director excited!

http://www.valagro.com/en/corporate/the-group/

"...Valagro, a leading company in the production and marketing of biostimulants and specialty nutrients, presents YieldON, the new biostimulant specifically designed for row crop nutrition...

..."Some experimental trials conducted in Brazil have shown an average productivity increase of 13-15%
in relation to the standard level"..

Benoit Genot, Global Marketing Director of Valagro:

"The row crop market is based on intensive cultivation systems aimed at obtaining increasingly higher yields to meet the growing demand for food from the world's population. Rice, wheat, corn and soybeans are the crops used most to meet this constantly increasing worldwide demand for food, and they occupy most of the agricultural surface area throughout the world...

...For these reasons, YieldON is a viable solution that ensures high quantity and quality yields within the constraints of greater crop efficiency."

http://www.valagro.com/en/corporate...n-new-biostimulant-valagro-increases-product/

Expand

How to rig a fertiliser experiment

The results from fertiliser experiments are particularly noteworthy for their ability to get the results required, it is worth explaining how and why. For the full details underpinning this see the FFC Bulletin article “The Fundamentals of Soil Nutrient Management, Soil Testing and Fertiliser Recommendations” [3], and also “Understanding biological / organic fertilisers using kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) as an example" [2].

A plants response to fertiliser does not just depend on the fertiliser, its growth response is to the total amounts of nutrients supplied from both the soil (or potting mix) and the fertiliser. There is an optimum amount of each nutrient that any given plant needs to maximise yield (or any other measurement). If there are excessive amounts of nutrients it will harm the plant and suppress yield, and if there are too few nutrients yield will also be suppressed. So, if a plant is grown in nutrient deficient soil and nutrients are supplied via fertiliser, the plant will grow more, potentially a lot more if the soil is really deficient. If the soil is around optimum, applying the same amount of the same fertiliser will have no effect on yield. If the soil is already in excess, applying the same level of fertiliser will cause a decrease in yield. So, the same application of fertiliser will result in increased yield, no yield change, and a decrease in yield depending on the nutrient level in the soil used.

Clearly to sell more fertiliser, the companies selling it will want to do tests in nutrient deficient soil not soil with excessive nutrients. To pick this kind of trick up, the person looking at the experiment’s results needs to know what the nutrient level of the soil that was used in the tests and they then need to know if that is deficient, optimum or excessive, and then interpret the results on that basis. In short, always take the results of fertiliser trials with a pinch of salt.

https://www.bhu.org.nz/future-farmi...nderstanding-biostimulants-and-biofertilisers

Also what is a bio-stimulant by definition?