Jeff

I'm pretty sure these are the amounts the grain crop REMOVES from the soil. If you also removed the fodder, you had to increase the amounts. The amounts were determined by burning the grain and analyzing the contents in a lab. I don't believe the U of IL said anything about spreading, injectiing, or just piling it up on the end. Again, the examples I gave are wrong, I realize. I'll get the correct amounts. I also remember a short time back some of the other universities giving somewhat similar removal amounts. Not exactly the same, but not big enough differences to cause controversy.

Are you saying that one tillage method (strip till in this case) causes for less soil nutrient REMOVAL than another? Assuming yield is the same?

I think many growers see early growth (corn) advantage to starter fertilizer methods in a band. However, that advantage often disappears as the season progresses and often is nullified totally by harvest time. Are we saying that we should encourage roots to only grow in a narrow band (again-back to Mohawk roots) & not attempt to bush out? I think many growers locally have considered sidedressing as a method to "coax" roots to branch out & seek nutrients, thereby increasing root growth. I don't ever recall seeing any of the universities saying it took more/less N to grow 1 bu depending upon application method. Most universities just overhauled their recommendations, but I don't remember them saying you could use less N depending on application method.

Again-I cannot see the scientific (trial) data that says that fertilizer can be reduced by putting it in a band vs b-casting. If that were true, I guess that narrower row configurations would also allow for lesser fertilizer use. I'm speaking of factual results, not just perceived reasons. I'm not arguing against strip till, I just am not sure of this "reduced fertilizer" advertisement.