Oil Palm - ref 6638-2012

Please go through this.
http://www.aarsb.com.my/AgroMgmt/OilPalm/FertMgmt/Research/FertMgmt&Product.pdf

Pay special attention to the last few pages – there are charts and study reports / there is a conflict with R23 recommendations as to sub-soiling / find out also why does broadcasting beyond palm circle involve (what does this term “beyond” mean? @ manuring /4 annual @ 3.5 kg per palm using NPK + trace elements @ ratio mix of 12 – 0 – 25 + TE / assumptions for the following models should be programmed into palm growth simulation / growth rates will peak at year 7 / year 1 to 4 fertilization will follow NPK program with priority for N and P. K is not required as palm at this stage is not productive @ 4.5 MT per FFB bunch / kernel oil programmed restriction <2% / simulate run for two calendar years with drought featuring @ month 5 to 8 / rainfall weightage enter as nil / command run with 5 hours sunlight / trees facing West subject to azimuth of 25 degrees to rotate at 6% to 13% at axis point in lattitude 10.5. Elevation at 300 meters above SL. Incline: progressive 5% from West orientation to South East at curvature of 3 degrees @ 2 minutes. Request drone to fly using spectral imaging scan to determine front size and radial coverage at month 5 to 9 / spectral analysis is not required. Program the following assumptions to fertilization regime for 1,2 and 3 quarter to be repeated for 3 calendar years @ Nitrogen: 10 Phophorous: 5 and Potassium 25 / simulate moderate drought in all templates from month 5 to 8 with nominal rainfall not exceeding 2 mm per month. Soil nature pH reduction <4.5 acidity 6.3 – 6.0 stop gap with variation ranging @ 5%. Please advice ASAP as to manuring schedule and whether there is a need for sub T irrigation / last revision @ ref 3304-2011. / please determine nitrous oxide fluxes response current advisory:
http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Publications/files/journal/JA0195-05.PDF

contains misleading information / again there is a conflict with data set – reasons unknown. Preliminary trial runs suggest there is a difference between soil condition that is used between control and experiment / run simulation based on the following assumption, soil status: alluvial / pH @ 4% vector/ spectrum: > acidic with no phosphorous augmentation in last two calendar years.

Can someone please run the program simulation and tell me why our results and data are so different from historical median average yields?

I would appreciate it if this ready for my reading pleasure tomorrow at 0430 hrs.

Thank You.

Please note com-sat is down and will be off line for the next 3 days.

Darkness