Free agronomy on every program · John Deere Financial & AgQuest financing available
All research

Alfalfa · 2022 · Replicated field trial

AgriTec Alfalfa Spray-Seeding Trial

The best program returned 6.18 lb per plot against 2.85 lb where nothing was applied, a 117% increase on a first-year stand.

Agricenter International, Memphis TN

Agricenter International, Memphis TN · Download PDF ↓

Preparing your document…

Top program

6.18

lb/plot · Program 3 · Split potassium

Untreated check

2.85

lb/plot

Significance

P = 0.0016

Treatment F-test

Result by treatment

Alfalfa · 2022

Program 3 · Split potassium Calcium 2 + Nitro-Maxx+ 2 + 0-0-30 split 4/3 · 11 gal/ac
6.18 a
Program 2 · Full rate, all up front Calcium 2 + Nitro-Maxx+ 2 + 0-0-30 7 · 11 gal/ac
5.13 ab
Program 4 · Split with phosphate Calcium 2 + Nitro-Maxx+ 2 + 3-18-18 4 + 0-0-30 3 · 11 gal/ac
5 ab
Program 5 · No calcium, no Nitro-Maxx+ 0-0-30 3 + 3-18-18 4 · 7 gal/ac
4.63 b
Untreated check No fertility applied
2.85 c
lb/plot LSD (P = .05) = 1.268 lb Means sharing a letter do not differ significantly (LSD, P = .05). The treated programs share a or ab, so only the treated-versus-untreated contrast is statistically supported.

How the trial was run

Site
Agricenter International, Memphis TN · Shelby County
Layout
Randomized complete block · treated plot 10 × 30 ft · harvested area 5 × 30 ft · 7.5 in rows
Treatments × reps
5 × 4 = 20 plots
Variety
Alfalfa, variety not stated · seeded 50 lb/ac at 0.75 in
Planted
May 26, 2022 · emerged June 3
Harvested
August 22, 2022 · single cut · 88 days after the first application
Soil
Falaya / Waverly silt loam · pH 6.5 · CEC 7.8 · 1.8% OM · fertility rated excellent at trial start

Statistics

Treatment P(F)
0.0016
LSD (P = .05)
1.268 lb
CV
17.31%
Grand mean
4.755 lb/plot

The breakdown

What happened, measurement by measurement.

Every chart below is transcribed from the report you can open above. Green means the AgriTec program won the measure outright; grey means it came in statistically even, which on a quality measure is the result you want — the yield came without a give-back.

Plant height · June 27

Every fertility program stood taller than the untreated check.

Beats control
Untreated check
3.5 c
Program 5 · No calcium, no Nitro-Maxx+
3.8 c
Program 2 · Full rate, up front
4.3 bc
Program 3 · Split potassium
5 ab
Program 4 · Split with phosphate
5.5 a
in P = 0.0062 · LSD 1.04

Harvested weight converted to lb/ac

The treated plots roughly doubled the untreated check on this cut.

Beats control
Untreated check
828
Treated (low)
1345
Treated (high)
1795
lb/ac · single cut Direct conversion of the 150 ft² harvested area from one cut, not a measured whole-field yield

Everything else that was measured

Including the measurements that did not move. A trial that only reports what improved isn't a trial.

Plant height, June 27

5.5 a / 5.0 ab / 4.3 bc / 3.8 c / 3.5 c in

Programs 4 / 3 / 2 / 5 / check · P = 0.0062 · LSD 1.04

Harvested weight converted to lb/ac

828 check · 1,345 to 1,795 treated

Direct conversion of the 150 ft² harvested area from a single cut, not a measured whole-field yield

Stand quality, June 6

3.0 to 3.8 on a 1 to 5 index

P = 0.2790 · not significant · no letters shown

Stand quality, July 27

3.0 to 3.5 on a 1 to 5 index

P = 0.0625 · assumptions failed · draw no conclusion

Program 3 gain over check

+967 lb/ac, about 0.48 ton

Single cut, area conversion

What the report says

  • Four spray-applied seeding-year programs were tested against an untreated check, all applied in water at 15 gal/ac. Application A at planting on May 26, application B at V6 on June 22.
  • Harvested weight was significant at P = 0.0016: Program 3 at 6.18 lb/plot down to the untreated check at 2.85.
  • Plant height on June 27 was also significant at P = 0.0062, ranging from 5.5 in on Program 4 to 3.5 in on the check.
  • Programs 2, 3 and 4 all carried the same 11 gal/ac total, so the comparison between them is about timing and analysis rather than rate.
  • Neither stand-quality rating reached significance, so neither supports a treatment claim.

Trial notes & scope

  • One site, one season, one soil type. Not repeated across years or geographies.
  • The treated programs did not separate from each other. Only the treated-versus-untreated contrast is statistically supported.
  • Weight was recorded as lb/plot at a single cut. It is not a multi-cut season yield, and the per-acre figures are an area conversion.
  • Program 5 is confounded: it carried no calcium and no Nitro-Maxx+, but also 7 gal/ac instead of 11, so chemistry cannot be separated from total volume.
  • The July 27 stand-quality rating is unusable. Levene's and Shapiro-Wilk both failed because the scores were near-constant.
  • Baseline fertility was rated excellent and pH was already 6.5, so the check was not a deficient soil being rescued.
  • Not conducted under GLP or GEP.

The full report

Read every page.

Download PDF

Preparing your document…

Want to know what your soil would do?

A trial is a starting point, not a promise. Send us your soil test and we'll build the program around your numbers.

Help us tailor the site

What do you grow?

1 / 2

Pick any that apply. The more we know, the better the recommendations.

Pick at least one