fertilizer

[TBone]

Cowboydoc,

I am just a dumb old country boy/w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif so I am easily confused. What I am saying is bulk or bag makes no difference when it comes to the analysis.

As I said in the post to Twinkletoes, practically all states periodically test fertilizer to make sure the guaranteed analysis is within certain percentages of what it is advertised to be. I feel sure that Iowa does since it is an agricultural state.

I have observed the process in Louisiana only but I'm sure it is similar in other states. The inspector takes a very small sample (a couple of ounces), weighs it and does the chemical analysis for each of the three major components (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium).

If the proportions of the ingredients were correct and it was sufficiently mixed then the analysis will relect that. Louisiana used to allow a 15% variance simply because it's not an exact science to blend fertilizers.

The point is whether that two ounce sample comes out of a bag or out of a bulk trailer that has 40,000 lbs. the percentages should be the same. If it is 13-13-13 fertilizer the sample should contain 13% of each of the three ingredients.

I haven't thought about fertilizer analysis for a long time but I may dream about it tonight.

TBone

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

TBone,

I'd trade that #300 lbs of fertilizer you just mixed for onel pick-up truck full of aged cow manure./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Al

 

[TBone]

Aha, something we can agree on./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

TBone

 

[TBone]

Cowboydoc,

I called River Valley Coop (563) 785-4406 and talked to a "fertilizer guy". He said that 40-40-40 was the "mix", not the analysis. I'm not sure what that means. He did not know what the analysis was and suggested that I call (563) 785-4406 and speak to a salesman. I called that number and the lady said that neither of them were in.

Anyway this whole thing may have started over the terminology that they use and my confusing it with the guaranteed analysis. If that is the case I profoundly apologize for starting this whole thing. If we're comparing a 13-13-13 analysis to a 40-40-40 mix then we're comparing apples to oranges.

I may call them again on Monday to satisfy my curiosity. There used to be a requirement that the guaranteed analysis had to be on any tickets, bags or invoices (kinda like the a.p.r. on loan contracts) but I'm not sure if it still does.

The "fertilizer guy" acted kinda suspicious that I was questioning the analysis but it was probably my accent, which I'm told is quite evident. He probably thought I was from the Dixie Mafia or something.

Ya'll have a good week-end. I will be going out of town and off the 'puter for a couple of days.

TBone

 

[cowboydoc]

Ok I think I see where we are not agreeing now tbone. With the mix I get in bulk it wouldn't be tested. What would be tested is the individual product before it was mixed. The numbers I have are not ratios of the total. They are the strength of the particular nitrgoen, phosphorous, or potassium. So when the product was tested the inspector would test to see if the potassium was 40 units or 90 units of the total pellet. I think what you are saying is that that particular pellet has to equal a 100. So if it's a 40 strength then that pellet would be 40 parts nitrogen and 60 parts inert ingredient. If it was 100 then the total pellet would be 100% pure nitrogen. If the inspector looked at the bulk that I got he wouldn't get a 40% 40% 40% ratio. To figure this he would have to look at each individual pellet to see if it was what it was supposed to be.

 

[paulw]

Here’s a link that defines the fertilizer composition percentages http://www.gov.nf.ca/agric/pubfact/Fertility/manures&Fertillizers.htm. The first number is the percent nitrogen as elemental (N), the second number is the available phosphorous as P2O5 (phosphorous pentoxide), the last number soluble potassium as K2O (potassium oxide).

 

[W5FL]

I just finished fertilizing 7 acres with 250 gallons liquid fertilizer. How does this compare with granular, which I normally use. The price was right at $150/ton for the liquid. Yes, it burned everything pretty well and I put it on with Grazon P+D which got most of the weeds. Now about all I have is Green Coastal growing there. What burned came back very quickly, but the weeds didn't. Sorry, but I can see no advantage in the granular over the liquid IF you have the right equipment to put the liquid on with and you furnish your own rain as it is liquid and goes to work immediately. Yes, I will use less this fall. /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

 

[cowboydoc]

As far as comparison it's the same thing Wen. Problem is with the liquid like you found out you can burn it really good. You are very lucky as usually it doesn't come back. Also here you have to go through all the training and have a special applicator to put down the liquid. Did they do it for you or did you have it done? As you said you also have to have water on pasture right away with the liquid as well or it will kill it alot of times. On all my crop ground I put down liquid fertilizer but that's different. Do you have a license or are texas laws different on it? Also with liquid you have to go at a specific speed on your tractor relative to your sprayer. With the buggy they set it for you and it doesn't matter what speed you go at. Also $150/ton is extremely cheap. I wish we had fertilizer that cheap up here.

To answer your question then no there is no difference between the two but the application difference is night and day.

 

[TBone]

Wen,

You are correct. Liquid fertilizer is great as long as you get some rain on it shortly after application. Where you get permanent damage is when it is applied (in hot weather especially) and you don't get any rain for several days.

By the way, liquid fertilizer is analyzed the same way as granules: %nitrogen + %phosphorus + %potassium.

TBone

 

[fractal]

Charlie

I have the same problem here. My local farm store won't sell urea (46/0/0) or Am Nit (33/0/0) 'over the counter' any more. They only sell it to people with an account (so they can track it, or so they say).

They started getting worried after that guy blew up the building in st louie with a truck full of fertilizer and are getting even more worked up after the wtc. Can't say as I blame them.

of course, that doesn't help me with my avo's which want 1.5 pounds of nitrogen per tree per year. Urea is the cheapest form of nitrogen (at least in the quantities that I use) and is less likely to polute the ground water than many of the alternatives. I don't mind using 16:16:16 for the first feeding but I gotta find somewhere to buy 100# of urea for the rest of the season or I am afraid I am gonna mess up my soil something fierce by adding all that P and K I don't need.