I was recently asked about a product that is being promoted as a gypsum substitute. I’m not going to show the data because I received it second hand. But here are my comments. This Peanut Note is likely more about how to interpret data than use of this particular product.

*After getting enough questions, I have posted the data here.

The data presented are inconclusive. The control yields are essentially the same as the treatment yields. One test does not have a control. To know if a product works, you have to include a negative control in the study (non-treated.) The study does have a positive control (gypsum.) Even if the non-treated control is in the study, if there is no response by the treatments over the control, you can’t say one product performed the same as the other. Well, you can say that, but you really did not have a test that gave you the opportunity to see if one product did better than the other.

In one trial, there was a 300 pound difference in yield between non-treated peanuts and both calcium products; both products did about the same. In the other trial, there was no difference between treatments. In the third trial without the non-treated control, you can’t draw a conclusion about yield even though yield was about the same for the two treatments. 

There were no statistics and there is no information on replication. To make a recommendation, one would need to know variation to know if the results are repeatable.

One also needs to know locations, market type (Virginia vs Runner vs Valencia), and soil characteristics.

It is not wise to move away from a proven product (gypsum) to a new product like this one without a more complete set of data that is analyzed appropriately.

I 100% realize the challenges with gypsum from a price and logistical standpoint. But right now, there is no proven substitute.

Calci-Prill

Landplaster Study 2024

Study 2023

Study 2022