Telling photo of soil nutrient content (UPDATED)
#11
RE: Telling photo of soil nutrient content
ORIGINAL: Bols
On the same token,corn which is tall,does not necessarily translate into higher yields.
On the same token,corn which is tall,does not necessarily translate into higher yields.
#12
RE: Telling photo of soil nutrient content
I think you guys missed the point. I'm not really discussing corn, here. I'm pointing out how nutrituous the midwest soil "products" are to the animals that eat them.
#16
RE: Telling photo of soil nutrient content
Heck...I forgot. Anyways.....the photos are not as bad as what I'd thought. Our corn here is growing better than I thought. I'm 6' tall.
The sheer size of the pants (rather than the height) is what got me. We grew up growing corn....and I've never seen leaf so big....or stalks with that much girth (as in the original photo I started the thread with).
Anyways....this was our corn, Saturday. (OK....I didn't downlod them....but I'll retrive and download them at lunch). Sorry.
The sheer size of the pants (rather than the height) is what got me. We grew up growing corn....and I've never seen leaf so big....or stalks with that much girth (as in the original photo I started the thread with).
Anyways....this was our corn, Saturday. (OK....I didn't downlod them....but I'll retrive and download them at lunch). Sorry.
#17
RE: Telling photo of soil nutrient content
I'm sure theres a point. But by comparison I could post some NC "Bacca" (tobacco for true yanks) and then post an Ohio "bacca" field... and yours would look fuller &greener. What useful deer data could we draw from that comparison?
#19
RE: Telling photo of soil nutrient content
I don't know. What type of tobacco are you growing, there? Flu-cured? Burly? Our planting season for tobacco is earlier than yours (if you're growing flu-cured).....so our tobacco's been in the ground, longer. I would think the fact that our corn has been growing longer....and still doesn't hold a candle to yours....would only bolster my assessment....but it wasn't based on science. I made the "observation" not to prove a point (a point I think we all concede). It was made to bolster a fact.