An Evaluation of an Alternative Commercial Fertilization Program for Cotton
| dc.contributor.author | Hofmann, W. C. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Else, P. T. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-01-24T18:20:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-01-24T18:20:34Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1988-03 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/204529 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Plant growth products manufactured by BioHumaNetics, Inc. (BHN) were evaluated at the Maricopa Agricultural Center for the third consecutive year in the same field. Treatments included: 1) no fertilizers added; 2) standard fertilization used on cotton at the farm; and 3) a treatment schedule prescribed by BHN. Yields in 1987 were significantly different; the BHN treatment produced the highest yield, and the unfertilized treatment produced the lowest yield. Yields from all three treatments were substantially lower than corresponding 1986 yields. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | 370072 | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Series P-72 | en_US |
| dc.subject | Agriculture -- Arizona | en_US |
| dc.subject | Cotton -- Arizona | en_US |
| dc.subject | Cotton -- Fertility | en_US |
| dc.title | An Evaluation of an Alternative Commercial Fertilization Program for Cotton | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.identifier.journal | Cotton: A College of Agriculture Report | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-06-12T23:58:08Z | |
| html.description.abstract | Plant growth products manufactured by BioHumaNetics, Inc. (BHN) were evaluated at the Maricopa Agricultural Center for the third consecutive year in the same field. Treatments included: 1) no fertilizers added; 2) standard fertilization used on cotton at the farm; and 3) a treatment schedule prescribed by BHN. Yields in 1987 were significantly different; the BHN treatment produced the highest yield, and the unfertilized treatment produced the lowest yield. Yields from all three treatments were substantially lower than corresponding 1986 yields. |
