# Aggrand liquid fertilizer?



## Farmerboy

Has anybody here used this fertilizer? I am just getting ready to apply it for the first time.


----------



## JKTexas

I just started to look at this also and would be very interested on what happens and more importantly how you are applying it.
I was told that you needed to apply it with about 20-25 gallons of water an acre. That means a lot of trips back to the hose


----------



## Farmerboy

I was told by the rep to water it down to about 1 gallon of product with 50 gallons of water per acre. With a 200 gallon 3-point sprayer that is a lot of trips!


----------



## JKTexas

I just got some literature that says to use 1 gallon per 25 gallons of water per acre.
I also read, in the literature where one rancher did 100 acres for $900. 
There are some conflicting reports here.
I am beginning to think this may be more of a selling scheme than something that works.
I am still looking at this.


----------



## Farmerboy

I applied it to just one field at the 1-50 mixture and was really pleased. I got my best 3rd cutting ever with the fertilizer. Next year I will definitly use it extensively.


----------



## Production Acres

Nitrogen will cost almost the same for the various types of N available. Urea may be $1.2/lb, amoinia may be $1.1/lb, etc. And a 5-10% spread is understandable and justifiable, but when dry fertilizer costs you $125/acre or whatever, and liquid fertilizer costs only $40/acre, red light bulbs should go off in your head, and you should run! 
As I understand it, liquid fertilizer is a great tool when used in an existing weed control program ( you combine a 2,4-D application and a fertilizer application) or in an irrigation program where you are already applying water and already have equipment running over the farm. But applying one application of 15-5-5 foaliarly does not equal one application of 60-30-60 granual fertilizer. 4 applications of the liquid would get the nitrogen correct, but that is also 4 trips across the field. 
we would not sell phosphate mined in russia, put on a boat, shipped to new orleans, put on a barge, sent up the missippi, put on a truck, shipped to a coop in MN, put on a spreader truck and applied to your farm ( and there are many, many tons spread across the US) if liquid fertilizer would do the same job for 1/5 the price. THE WHEEL IS NOT BEING REINVENTED!


----------



## Farmerboy

I don't think that this is something new or that it would work for everybody but for me and my situation liquid fertilizer works best. I like the fact that it is cheaper, organic, and easier to apply.


----------



## Production Acres

Farmerboy said:


> I don't think that this is something new or that it would work for everybody but for me and my situation liquid fertilizer works best. I like the fact that it is cheaper, organic, and easier to apply.


If you like it, use it but I keep hearing how cheap it is, but how much does a pound of N cost?
We don't use much bagged fertilizer, but today, 34-0-0 costs $670/ton, thus for 680# of nitrogen it will cost $670 or $0.98 dollars per pound.
Urea today 46-0-0 costs $970/ton, thus for 920# of urea it will cost $970 or $1.05 dollars per pound.
How much does a pound of liquid N cost?


----------



## OhioHay

I think that you guys are comparing apples to oranges. I am guessing that at that low of a rate that this is a foliar fertilizer. I don't think you can compare actual lbs put on the soil to the efficiency of a foliar. I am not saying one way is better than another, just different and hard to compare on a $ per lb of N basis. We have used some foliars with mixed results, used dry for years, but think we had to over apply to get the benefit due to nutrients being tied up and dry fertilizer adds lots of salt to the soil. We are now using poultry litter, both layer, broiler, and turkey, plus feedlot manure. I think all will work, but you need to fit you situation.


----------



## Production Acres

No, we are not comparing apples to oranges, or if we are please show me truthfully how I can fertilize 100 acres with $900. 
We too use hundreds of loads of manures each year, but if you don't know what each pound of nitrogen or P or K costs, you are farming with someone else's money or else you don't rely upon farming for your income. For example some of our broiler houses don't clean out every time and the manure becomes more concentrated and some tested 104-98-44 this spring. this summer some litter where they are cleaning out more often is testing 23-80-70. And some horse manure we used only tested .3-8-11. Interestly, one grower who used to spread for me had a 16' spreader truck and claimed he was hauling 7-8 tons per load. Another grower has a 20' spreader bed and claimed he was hauling 10-15 tons per load. We just bought a 24' spreader with sideboards and we weighed it - 13 tons! The 24' bed with sideboards in volume holds twice the load the 20' spreader!
Manure has all kinds of benefits, but we must know how much we are paying per pound of actual N-P-K, and we have to know how much bedding we are buying, and how much $4.5/diesel we are burning.
If you are fertilizing a 10 acre field, the math isn't that important, but spread over a couple thousand acres and those dollars start becoming important.


----------



## OhioHay

I am not disagreeing that you must know your costs. I have raised hay for 19 years and wouldn't still be doing it if I didn't know my costs. What I am saying is that foliars are supposed to be more efficient, thus you need less total lbs per acre as none of it is being tied up by the soil. I have been told that it is 10 to 1. Will have to do some research to see if that number is true. I don't know anything about aggrand, but have done some work with other companies with mixed results. As for fertilizing for $9 per acre, I imagine that is per cutting per acre. When we did foliars, you had to apply that before 1st and then after each cutting. So 4 cuttings would actually run you $36 to $ 45 per acre depending if you applied after the 4th cutting. I am not trying to start a fight here, but there are many many wasy to fertilize and one has to find the product and cost structure that works for him or her in their region of the country.

As for tons of manure on a spreader, moisture content and manure content would make a great difference. The layer litter we use is heavier than broiler and would add up to more tons on the same size load. Also we cleaned one house with a water issue and boy was it heavy.


----------



## msparks

You have to realize that the %N you get from the AGGRAND product does not equate to what is listed on the bottle.

AGGRAND is a highly formulated organic fertilizer made from Fish/Kelp. It contains microbes that activate when they are mixed with water and spread on your fields. After about 14 days microbial activity will have increased over 2100% (Must be warm out)

90% of your N will come from the air (which is 78% Nitrogen). This is why this product works so well.

If you have really poor soil, it won't work as well. If you have no organic matter in your soil, again won't work.

Next, is the fact that you are not using chemicals which decrease microbial activity as well as keep the earthworms out of your soil. 1 acre of healthy earthworms can produce over 700 lbs of castings per day. Again that's another "free" source of nutrients to your grasses.

I would be glad to answer more questions on this product.


----------



## TBrown

if you are telling me you are fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere straight to soil with Aggrand, you just reinvented the wheel and are doing something everyone wishes they could accomplish. Also, you see commercial fertilizers having a serious salinity problem in soil? Please explain this. I also believe you need to do some more research on the effect of chemicals and Aggrand on Microbial populations. I don't quite buy what you are saying. Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## gwillie44

N,P,K keep your weeds under control, pick a good variety of seed that fits your needs. After that a farmer can start to micro manage. ie: micro nutrients, new type fertilizers ect. just my 2 cents


----------



## Production Acres

AGGRAND is a highly formulated organic fertilizer made from Fish/Kelp. It contains microbes that activate when they are mixed with water and spread on your fields. After about 14 days microbial activity will have increased over 2100% (Must be warm out)

is there something magic about fish/kelp or will cow manure/straw work, or how about chicken parts/chicken litter/pine shavings, or horse manure/pine shavings. they have to be favorable to earthworms as well, and they have plenty of residual value and anyone who spreads manure knows how much microbial activity and worm activity there is in these products, but short of bags of manure at wallmart, they will never trade at much more than about 75% of what chemical fertilizer costs for the same amount of basic nutrients.

If what you are saying is verifiable, why doesn't every Co-oP and feed store in america sell this product?


----------



## msparks

TBrown said:


> if you are telling me you are fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere straight to soil with Aggrand, you just reinvented the wheel and are doing something everyone wishes they could accomplish. Also, you see commercial fertilizers having a serious salinity problem in soil? Please explain this. I also believe you need to do some more research on the effect of chemicals and Aggrand on Microbial populations. I don't quite buy what you are saying. Just my 2 cents worth.


Conventional fertilizers supply N as salt. Salts dissolve quickly in soil, releasing N. Salt-based fertilizers toxify the soil which reduces soil microbe and earthworm populations, which reduces nutrient cycling, decreases soil organic matter content, increases soil compaction and damages soil structure.


----------



## msparks

Production Acres said:


> is there something magic about fish/kelp or will cow manure/straw work, or how about chicken parts/chicken litter/pine shavings, or horse manure/pine shavings. they have to be favorable to earthworms as well, and they have plenty of residual value and anyone who spreads manure knows how much microbial activity and worm activity there is in these products, but short of bags of manure at wallmart, they will never trade at much more than about 75% of what chemical fertilizer costs for the same amount of basic nutrients.
> 
> If what you are saying is verifiable, why doesn't every Co-oP and feed store in america sell this product?


Other Organic materials also supply microbes. Not saying those other products don't work. The liquid fish/kelp is just easier to use, since it can be sprayed on which also gives you the advantage of a Foliar Application. Foliar feeding can be more efficient especially at certain times of the growing cycle when more nutrients are needed. ie seedling emergence, after cuttings, etc. With foliar feed you can get more nutrient uptake if your soil isn't as fertile to give good root uptake.

AS far as stores that carry it, etc. Well I'm working on that, meet with one guy at the Co-op during the TN Horticulture Expo this past weekend. I'm going to try to get the products at least on the shelf for home growers and such. I just don't see it being sold in bulk, as the pricing would not be as good.

I've also had some folks take one look at the bottle and say the analysis is too low for it to work, so it's an uphill battle (Kind of like I'm getting here)
Anyhow, I've had a few hay growers here in TN that had success last year. One guy in Bon Aqua, TN had a nice increase in yield on 70 acres and he will be buying again this year.


----------



## msparks

Production Acres said:


> is there something magic about fish/kelp or will cow manure/straw work, or how about chicken parts/chicken litter/pine shavings, or horse manure/pine shavings.


I was also going to say, that I believe you will find a higher concentration of micro-nutrients, enzymes and amino acids. The Kelp and Sulfate of Potash also has sulfur in the sulfate form which is readily available to the plant. Sulfur must be present in sufficinet amounts in the soil and plant tissue to realize the benefits of Nitrogen and Potassium.


----------



## TBrown

Man I am begining to think I should rethink what I learned in 6 years studying soil science in college. Never once did I hear of a "Special formulation" with the power to convert N gas in the atmosphere to nitrate or ammonium. Last I knew it took high pressure and energy to complete this process. With a nutrient content of 4-3-3, and a liquid weight of 8.43 lbs/gallon, with a application rate of 1 gallon per acre, you will be applying
.34 actual lbs N, and .26 actual lbs P and K. its going to take an awful lot of product to get anywhere close to the nutrient requirements for hay production even if you believe liquid fertilizer is more available (which is debatable). 100 lbs per acre is going to take a lot of gallons at .34 lbs/gallon. You claim that your AgGrand product doesn't work well on poor soils, maybe that has something to do with the lack of nutrients actually being supplied. A possible reason for you thinking it works well on soil with higher organic matter levels is due to the nutrient supplying power of the soil for P and K, add a little nitrogen and boom grass grows and looks green. The only information I can find on the reduction of soil microbes is if you use a denitrifcation inhibitor such as Nserve which is benefical to reducing the amount of nitrogen made unavailable to plants. I would have to agree with Calvin that the best way to influence microbe populations is the addition of organic matter such as manures or composts. If you apply more than .34 lbs N per acre, with adequate amounts of carbon such as wheat straw or cornstalks from manure applications you will balance your C:N Ratio increasing microbial activity. If applying commercial fertilizers has such a salinity effect on soil, then why isn't there salt problems in the midwest where we receive adequate rainfall to leach salts out of the soil profile? From my knowledge of soil science, the amount of accumulated salts in soils from fertilizers that recieve adequate amounts of rainfall to leach the salts from the soil are very minimal and have insignificant effects on soil physical characteristics. This is just my opinion, I am not going to claim to be an expert, but I would recommend sticking to the horticulture industry who doesn't need near the nutrient requirements as hay production.


----------



## msparks

Well I didn't come on here to argue, I guess we will just leave it as that. If you want to learn more about these types of products, maybe take a look at Rodale's guide to organic gardening.

If it works in Horticulture, it will work on hay. My hay customers are happy with last years production, and I'm sure they will be this year as well.


----------



## Production Acres

msparks said:


> I was also going to say, that I believe you will find a higher concentration of micro-nutrients, enzymes and amino acids. The Kelp and Sulfate of Potash also has sulfur in the sulfate form which is readily available to the plant. Sulfur must be present in sufficinet amounts in the soil and plant tissue to realize the benefits of Nitrogen and Potassium.


So, at an application rate of 1 gallon per acre of your product, it will have a higher concentration of micronutrients, enzymes and amino acids than my application of 8,000# of chicken manure per acre. Keep in mind that that chicken manure has feed in it, chicken parts in it, chicken manure in it, and sawdust from many species of trees in it. And we topdress it with commercial fertilizer to balance it, but 1 gallon per acre of your product will do better.

I have plenty of ground here in TN - You are welcome to fertilize half a field for me and show us all the cost savings and benefits of your products.


----------



## msparks

Production Acres said:


> I have plenty of ground here in TN - You are welcome to fertilize half a field for me and show us all the cost savings and benefits of your products.


*And why would I want to do this?*


----------



## Production Acres

We regurally give sample product to a lot of new customers and will willingly demo our product or services to our customers or potential customers.


----------



## msparks

Maybe we could work something out. Don't know how big 1/2 a field is. But 5 or so acres could be doable.


----------



## Production Acres

we have several 10-15 acre fields - some right on the highway so you could even put a sign on it showing your test plot. We could split a field right down the middle and have a good trial.


----------



## msparks

Here is a brochure I just got from one of my competitors. Kinda says a lot of the same things I've been saying.

http://www.lkcs1.com/emailmarketing/agrienergy/images/12 Ways.pdf


----------



## Farmerboy

My original thread has grown! For me personally I don't really care all that much about how it works just as long as it works. It definitely has for me!


----------



## Cozyacres

Production Acres said:


> we have several 10-15 acre fields - some right on the highway so you could even put a sign on it showing your test plot. We could split a field right down the middle and have a good trial.


I know this is an old post, just wondering if this test plot ever happened. Would be interested to know the results.


----------



## urednecku

cozyacres said:


> I know this is an old post, just wondering if this test plot ever happened. Would be interested to know the results.


Me, too. Thanks for bringing it back up.

BUT, seeing that msparks only has 11 posts, and was last active on Jan 18 2010 06:57 PM, I'm thinking not!!


----------



## vhaby

Sorry I wasn't around when this thread was active. I'd probably really gotten myself in hot water by writing that users and sellers of this product are truly ignorant about soil fertility and plant nutrition relative to forage production.


----------



## swmnhay

WHEN SOMEONE OFFERED HIS ACRES TO COMPARE THE GUY DISAPEERED.IMAGINE THAT!!!


----------



## Cozyacres

swmnhay said:


> WHEN SOMEONE OFFERED HIS ACRES TO COMPARE THE GUY DISAPEERED.IMAGINE THAT!!!


I wish there were some 'objective' tests on this type of fertilizer, not " testimomials" from the dealers selling it. I'd do it myself, but don't have extra money to throw away if it dosnt work!


----------



## Mike120

Maybe I'm just stupid, but for the life of me I just can't make the math work out when I see single-digit numbers on a "fertilizer" that's diluted 2-3 oz to a gallon of water for foliar, soil application rates of 32 oz to 8 gallons for 1K sq. ft., and the stuff costs $76.95 for 2.5 gallons. I pretty much understand the role of happy soil microbes as well as the loss of nitrogen through denitrification, leaching, votilization, etc; phosphorus fixation and potassium leaching, but I can't believe you can apply that small amount of NPK and microbe colony forming units (if you can accurately count them in the first place) and make that big of a difference. Will someone please explain it to me as a proper material balance and show me some replicated studies performed by legitimate Ag research insitiutes (besides Rodale) instead of marketing BS and customer testamonials. It can't be that difficult, we've been calculating reaction kinetics since the 1800's. Besides, when you are appling foliar fertilizer how do the microbes help....i guess they slide off the leaf and burrow into the soil.

The Fluid Fertilizer Institute is promoting research and from what I have seen, are building valid models to define the value and economics of foliar and soil applied liquid fertilizers. Interestingly enough, all of the liquids, including foliar, have very simular NPK numbers as the granular fertilizers currently in use. I'll be more impressed with these "organic magic potions" when I see them standing up to scientific scrutiny instead of hiding behind a lot of marketing smoke and mirrors.


----------



## vhaby

Replicated research trials have been done on these types of products, but Aggrand was not around at that time. Texas A&M soil scientists tested some products and published the data in the early '80s, if I remember correctly. The Montana Agricultural Experiment Station tested a few of these products in the mid-'70s and published the results. Shortly thereafter, one of the product companys threatened a lawsuit and actually sent four reps to a meeting with MAES/MSU administration. Company reps, all clad in dark sunglasses in a well-lighted meeting room demanded a recall of an editorial about the test results and the publication. When the administration countered with an offer to do further testing on the product with the company funding the research, these guys went away. However, that didn't stop them from continuing to sell or attempt to sell product to unsuspecting customers who are not sufficiently educated in soil fertility/plant nutrition for crop production to know that these types of products cannot possibly perform as claimed.

Even when legitimate tests are done on these products, the seller's companies tell unsuspecting producers that the tests were not done according to company protocol relative to how to use the product. For example, 2,4-D applied uniformly over the whole experimental area should not have been used to control broadleaf weeds in a test on barley- the company rep's wife complained that 2,4-D ruined the product's ability to outproduce test plots fertilized with granular fertilizer according to extension recommendations.


----------



## hayray

I have a neighbor that sells it and I looked into it. But factoring the labor of applicaiton and price it was gonna cost me a lot of use it. I think it required two trips across the field per season. Lots of water and time and the cost of the product was about the same as buying granular fertilizer.


----------



## somedevildawg

The fact that amsoil is written proudly across the chest area tells me alot.....hell it might be AM SOIL diluted in h2o, heard that stuff was crazy good, just saying.....I just wonder why none of the car manufactures recommends it, hmmmmm.....


----------



## Mike120

somedevildawg said:


> The fact that amsoil is written proudly across the chest area tells me alot.....hell it might be AM SOIL diluted in h2o, heard that stuff was crazy good, just saying.....I just wonder why none of the car manufactures recommends it, hmmmmm.....


People like him give AMSOIL a bad name. The car builders in the US put the cheapest stuff they can get away with in the engines on the assembly line. Even though they reccomend a +5K mile oil change, their dealers and places like Jiffylube still push a 3K oil change because they make a lot more money that way. In Europe (and most of the rest of the world) the cars come off the assembly line with synthetic oil and typically have a 10K mile oil change recommendation. I've got +250K on a F-150 that's had synthetic (Mobil 1) since it's first change. I change it at 10K if it needs it or not. If I remember right, my daughter's BMW has a 1 year/25K oil change recommendation.

I do run AMSOil in all my diesel tractors and trucks...it's not that much more for the protection it gives me. I get lab tests on my oil and although I don't try to extend the change periods that much, my test results show that I could probably double the change interval and still be OK. In almost all test results I've seen AMSOIL comes out on top with Mobil 1 a close second. Their marketing model using dealers is a bit weird, but their products are very good.......and no, I'm not a dealer and I don't sell the stuff, but I do get the dealer pricing and buy from the same warehouse.


----------



## somedevildawg

You are right on about the amsoil products, the problem is the distribution, I was rebuilding a engine last winter and started looking around for some zddp, no one has it on the shelf except napa manufactured by Lucas oil, so I thought I would try amsoil surely they have some, go to the distributors house in the barn behind the house he has 2 cases of basic oil and says one is for his daughter.........therein lies the problemo with amsoil, bogus distribution out of the main stream, left to multi-level marketeers and.....well, foliar fertilizer guys I guess.....Lucas oil has fine products and I use them consistently on all of my equipment, for truck parts I use napa.


----------



## Aurora_Ranch

Traditional chemical based fertilizers leave behind salts which cause nutrient lockout which in turn cause stunted growth and root system stress. The beneficial microbes in the Aggrand NOF eat the salts and other bad chemical trace elements which in turn release previously locked out nutrients and make them available to the root system and the byproduct the microbes release are nitrogen and phosphorus.

Nitrogen fixing is attainable now but it is expensive. Reforestation Technologies Inc. makes a product named Azos that works well. I just can't afford it on a large scale but we had incredible results in our gardens this year as a test.

I actually talked to the chemical engineer at Aggrand about application rates and he told me that for my seventy acres at the highest recommended application rate for a 70 acre pasture would take 40 gallons of Aggrand to 1,360 gallons water applied at a rate of twenty gallons per acre. Liquid lime would be mixed at the same rate for enhanced results.

In my opinion soil health is more important than all else and that is where it starts. A friend of mine from Bandera Texas bales the original Coastal strain and entered the hay contest in Arkansas this last year and his Coastal CP tested out at a little over 18%. He told me that one of the top placers every year told him that he should apply molasses or table sugar in a tank mix that comes to about 1.5 to 2 pounds per acre.
In doing this it does more for the soil health as in providing the beneficial microbes and bacteria the sugars they need to multiply and enrich the soil.


----------



## vhaby

Aurora_Ranch said:


> Traditional chemical based fertilizers leave behind salts which cause nutrient lockout which in turn cause stunted growth and root system stress. The beneficial microbes in the Aggrand NOF eat the salts and other bad chemical trace elements which in turn release previously locked out nutrients and make them available to the root system and the byproduct the microbes release are nitrogen and phosphorus.


I guess that you are doing the best that you can to repeat the misguided propaganda that you have been fed, but this doesn't sound like anything that someone educated in soil science would say. Fertilizers (N-P2O5-K2O) applied at 500 lb per acre to a soil 6-inches deep apply very little salt. Consider that an acre of soil 6-inches deep weighs about 2 million pounds (depending on soil bulk density.) This amount of fertilizer applied to 2 million pounds of soil amounts to 0.025% increase in salt content on initial application. This low salt content is almost not measurable using a standard soil conductivity meter. In addition, much of the applied fertilizer is leached deeper into the soil than the 6-inch depth, some is taken up by the plant, and a small amount may be lost as an ammonia gas through volatilization. So the residual salt content is even lower than 0.025%.

If as you state above, "salts which cause nutrient lockout which in turn cause stunted growth and root system stress," then why do we see such a drametic increase in plant growth from fertilizer applied according to soil test recommendations. Please be more careful who you listen to and the propaganda that you read.

Again as you stated above "He told me that one of the top placers every year told him that he should apply molasses or table sugar in a tank mix that comes to about 1.5 to 2 pounds per acre. In doing this it does more for the soil health as in providing the beneficial microbes and bacteria the sugars they need to multiply and enrich the soil."

What your friend told you is mostly true, but he failed to tell you that sugar-activated microbes tie up plant nutrients from the organic matter that they mineralize. Only when these microbes die and decompose do they release these nutrients back to the soil system where they become available to plants. Most of the time, this is after the crop is grown, matured, and harvested. So, the beneficial effect of adding sugars to the soil is to activate the microbes to tie up plant available nutrients released from mineralized organic matter. So, adding sugar to the soil actually causes less nitrogen to be available to the plant for growth and reproduction.

Oh, and 18% crude protein in a grass hay is a waste of nitrogen when cattle need only around 12% crude protein in hay to do well during the winter. Awarding prizes for hay based on highest levels of crude protein is a misguided judgement in my humble opinion.


----------



## Mike120

vhaby said:


> The beneficial microbes in the Aggrand NOF eat the salts and other bad chemical trace elements which in turn release previously locked out nutrients and make them available to the root system and the byproduct the microbes release are nitrogen and phosphorus.


Aggrand NOF only claims to increase microbial action in the soil, they do not claim to add them to the small amount of fertilizer. I assume that because they actually call it "fertilizer" and are registered with the State they are somewhat limited in the marketing claims they could make. Interestingly enough the MSDS shows that it's manufactured by AMSOIL. I assume they are using the old Kelco process to make xanthan gum from kelp and they sell the waste to Aggrand to package as fertilizer. Years ago I worked for the company that owned Kelco and we expanded the production at their Okmulgee, OK facility.....small world.


----------



## Aurora_Ranch

Hay Master,
Point well taken. With that being said there is a lot more that goes on as well on a microbial level in addition to beneficial bacteria such as naturally occurring Mycorrhizal colonies and their symbiotic relationship with the plants root system which the sugars are key to expand and exploit this.

The soil food web comprises of millions and millions of microscopic organisms ranging in size from the tiniest one-celled bacteria to the more complex nematodes up to the larger visible earthworms and insects. Worms and soil microbes change the soil into a loose, crumbly, biologically active soil which resists erosion and soaks up water like a sponge. Soil organisms help release and recycle nutrients from the soil. This makes for healthier plants which provide their own disease and weed protection.
What do microbes do that makes them worth worrying about, let along worth trying to manage? In simplified human terms, the microbes are primarily in charge of food preparation for the plant. Beneficial microbes also help defend the plant against pathogenic microbes.
We do not tend to think of fertiliser as requiring "preparation" before it can be utilised by plants, but with the exception of nitrogen, all other nutrients require "microbial preparation" before they can be absorbed by the plant's root system. In the same way humans get their calcium from milk or cheese as opposed to limestone, plants get their minerals from by-products of a microbe that digested a particular mineral rather than getting it directly from inorganic minerals.
30% of the daily total of plant glucose production is exuded into the root-zone to attract and feed beneficial microbes. The plant sacrifices 30% of its glucose to feed the microbes that assist the plant in the process of nutrient solubilisation and absorption.
Microbes also breakdown organic matter and are responsible for making the carbon, phosphorus, sulphur and many other nutrient cycles function. In short, without microbes, the plant cycle would end.
Managing microbiology is perhaps the hardest concept to master in the System largely because the microbes themselves are too small to be seen - bacteria for example are 4/100,000 of an inch wide. It is particularly hard to manage something you cannot see. Because managing the microbiology is so important we will attempt to help you visualise your team of microbes...
In the right environment species multiply and come into a proper balance, the theory been to promote the environment for this to happen. Correct nutrient balance in the soil as well as active carbon provides the soil structure for aerobic microbes to flourish.


----------



## somedevildawg

Amsoil anyone? Reminds me of my extension guy telling a longtime cattleman that by letting his animals graze on his hay land would allow him to use less fertilizer, cattleman just looked at him and said "feller...you been reading too many books".


----------



## vhaby

Aurora_Ranch said:


> What do microbes do that makes them worth worrying about, let along worth trying to manage? In simplified human terms, the microbes are primarily in charge of food preparation for the plant. Beneficial microbes also help defend the plant against pathogenic microbes.
> We do not tend to think of fertiliser as requiring "preparation" before it can be utilised by plants, but with the exception of nitrogen, all other nutrients require "microbial preparation" before they can be absorbed by the plant's root system. In the same way humans get their calcium from milk or cheese as opposed to limestone, plants get their minerals from by-products of a microbe that digested a particular mineral rather than getting it directly from inorganic minerals.
> Microbes also breakdown organic matter and are responsible for making the carbon, phosphorus, sulphur and many other nutrient cycles function. In short, without microbes, the plant cycle would end.


According to what you state above, I guess I'd better go back and re-read the soil chemistry and plant nutrition books that I studied, review all the professional journal articles, and revisit all the scientific presentations that I have heard, and posters that I have read at state, national, and international meetings in my years as a student and in my professional career.

No one is arguing the fact that microbes are important in mineralizing organic matter and releasing plant nutrients in this process. However, you are "up a tree" when you state that "plants get their minerals from by-products of microbe that digest inorganic minerals rather than getting it directly from inorganic minerals."

Lets look at some inorganic minerals applied to the soil as plant nutrients:

Nitrogen- plants can take up ammonium and nitrate. You are partially correct that some forms of applied fertilizer N don't need soil microorganisms to make the N available to plants. However, some of the applied ammonium is converted to nitrite by nitrosomonas bacteria and the nitrite is further converted to nitrate by nitrobacter bacteria. Plants in neutral to alkaline soils prefer the nitrate form of N. Acid loving plants such as azalea and blueberry prefer the ammonium form of N. Ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, and ammonium sulfate are salts that dissolve in water.

How are soil microorganisms involved with making the salts of potassium such as potassium chloride and potassium sulfate break down. Salts are dissolved in water to become the potassium and the chloride or sulfate ions that are then ready to be taken up by plants- no microorganisms involved. What about KMag or potassium magnesium sulfate. This also is a salt that is dissolved in water to produce potassium, magnesium, and sulfate ions that can be attached to the soil clay fraction or readily taken up by the plant. Plant nutrients are contained in other forms of salts such as zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, iron sulfate, manganese sulfate, etc.

How is limestone affected by soil microorganisms? Limestone is calcium carbonate that on reaction with soil acids is dissolved into calcium, carbon dioxide, and water. The calcium is in a form readily available for plant uptake. Plants get most of their carbon from carbon dioxide entering through the plants stomata- microscopic holes in leaves.

Have you ever heard of growing plants hydrophonically?- Plant nutrient minerals added directly to water and the plants grow and complete their life cycle in that water with no soil or microorganisms added.


----------



## Aurora_Ranch

Actually yes I know quite a bit about hydroponics. I have built my own ebb and flow tables, aeroponic, bubble ponic, hybrid aero/bubble phonics and drip feed systems. I have grown in hydroten, grow rocks and many other mediums.

You are correct, minerals are added in very precise amounts to water then carefully Ph'd.
Also you very precisely control the salinity and and TDS levels so that you don't harm the plant. Daily you have to monitor Ph, TDS, and resivoir temperatures so that you can adjust if need be to prevent nutrient lockout due to the Salt buildup which is another issue in hydroponic resivoirs. The resivoirs have to be cleaned often to keep the salt buildup out of the system. This is why I don't like traditional chemical fertilizers due to the salt build ups that the eye can't see. So if it causes build up and nutrient lock out in hydroponics they why would it not do itin soil.

I have over the last couple years gotten the same and better results in organics over hydroponics and it has nothing to do with Aggrand NOF liquid. I like what Aggrand and some other are doing and there is positive results from people who have worked with it.
There is a lot of things in nature that we don't fully understand, I believe we have a lot to learn about natural processes and have a lot to gain from trial and error.


----------



## Cozyacres

Aurora_Ranch said:


> This is why I don't like traditional chemical fertilizers due to the salt build ups that the eye can't see. So if it causes build up and nutrient lock out in hydroponics then why would it not do it in soil.
> I
> There is a lot of things in nature that we don't fully understand, I believe we have a lot to learn about natural processes and have a lot to gain from trial and error.


I agree with the above, the problem I have is finding a fertilizer that fits into my organic practices, and actually works. I can't afford too 'much trial and mostly error'

.


----------



## Mike120

Having spent a large portion of my life in chemical manufacturing which included designing and building a lot of fermentation facilities. I can definitely state that it is much easier (and usually cheaper) to let the bugs do the work, than it is to take the chemical synthesis route to production. Having said that however, most of the bugs are pretty persnickety and it is very difficult to create and maintain an environment where they thrive in numbers sufficient to support production requirements. We did have one of the most advanced Biologics Pilot Plants in the world, but there was still a lot of "black art" when we scaled it up for production.

Personally, I would be very happy to not have to buy chemicals and fertilizer. However, I have to balance my need for production volumes that make economic sense against the lower volume realities of "organic" production, and the fact that I am dependent on highly variable rain for my crop to grow. I have yet to see an "organic" hay field that can match the production I get from a more conventional approach, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm not interested in more sustainable methods of production. I also don't believe there is much of a market for "organic" hay and don't believe the animals I feed care one way or another.

The problem with "organics" is that it got hijacked by the anti-chemical, anti-GMO, anti-everything bunch of crazies and enough people bought into their rhetoric to create a market. Interestingly, now that the BTO's have gotten into it, they have hijacked the regulatory process, and now more and more chemicals are allowed into what is called "organic". At the same time, the organic producers could not supply the market with stable volumes, already believed that the bugs could solve their problems, and were open to the suggestions that a magic potion would solve their production woes.

All through history, whenever a need occurs in an economic market, people will jump to fill the need. Some of them will take a scientific approach, others will take a snake oil approach and the old axiom that "a fool and his money will soon be parted" continues to be valid. Sadly, in the case of "organics" there seems to be very few that are taking a scientific approach and we only seem to get the occasional snake oil salesmen which is where this thread was for a while.

I am personally interested in more discussions on sustainable farming methods which include organic methods but are not dominated by them. With the prices for chemicals and fertilizers continuing to climb, the price of diesel, etc, etc. that's most of what we discuss here. Most of us care about sustainability because our livelihoods depend on it. We might want to open a Forum for "organic" methods although I hate to call it that. There has to be a balance and I think all of us are searching for that. Any better suggestions?


----------



## jdhayboy

That was pretty well put Mike and about right in line with how I feel. As far as haying goes, I lease a place where they apply liquid wastewater. And have been for a really long time. Its as close to "organic" fertilizer for mass scale production as I can get. I could go into more detail on how its managed but I just wanted share couple points about my experience. That ground will flat out grow some grass. It grows as fast or almost as fast as my commercial fields. Thing about it tho, is that it don't quit, year round. Which opens up a whole other can of worms. The offseason invasives are atrocious and can only be dealt with commercial chemical applications as far as my knowledge goes for haying purposes. Even in summertime I will have careless weeds pop up every cutting because the ground is so fertile. So what happens here is that you give up one to gain another. Fight weeds and invasive grasses for the fertile ground. Another invasive is the armyworm, holy crap, any ever had them as early as late May or into June. Yeah they love that grass. And my own commercial fields are a 30 acre cow pasture away and are not in there. I can tell u tho the soil is great! Its nice and fluffy, not compacted at all. Big difference between that and mine. But To me, u gain an advantage and return create other problem. 
I also used on 3 fields heat treated bio-solid, labeled as fertilizer at 120-60-0 per ton. Applied 2 tons per acre and 200 units of potash per acre on each field mid April. On one field tho I hit it about with 350 lbs of a 20-4-16 a week or so later and that field kept up with all other commercial fields. Cut it four times and started to run out of gas on the last cutting. The other two fields with no commercial nitrogen were only cut twice. Profitability was relatively the same amongst all fields except these two were less productive and took longer to get to a cuttable yield. 
For me I think, that commercial and "organic" more like sustainable methods, can coexist and compliment each to still reach desirable productivity. As well as maintain a healthy soil balance.


----------



## Cozyacres

jdhayboy said:


> For me I think, that commercial and "organic" more like sustainable methods, can coexist and compliment each to still reach desirable productivity. As well as maintain a healthy soil balance.


I feel the same, My farm is not "Certified Organic", I try to limit the amount of chemicals used, but still maintain adequate production and soil health. I dont sell "organic" but my customers want as non chemical as possable. I sell pastured Chicken, Pork, Grass fed beef and feeder calves and try to be as sustainable as possable.


----------



## hay wilson in TX

So True:

Oh, and 18% crude protein in a grass hay is a waste of nitrogen when cattle need only around 12% crude protein in hay to do well during the winter. Awarding prizes for hay based on highest levels of crude protein is a misguided judgement in my humble opinion.

18% CP grass hay has it's place. 18% CP hay to supplement some low protein feed works well.
18% CP grass hay has a place in a Hay Show, Though in a Hay Show of any size it will not be bringin home any trophies. Ribbons yes trophies no. Hay show hay has a place in County Shows as a learning tool. Great Learning Tool.
I have seen hay in a hay show in the 22% CP range. 
How to? Enough fertilizer to encourage rapid growth. Then cut your 16" tall grass with 14 days growth and good moisture.

Lay a 14' wide swath and maybe 100' or 200' length. on the ground. 
Allow to cure to where the stems are good and dry. . 
Rake the hay at first light for minimum leaf loss. With a surface dew or 90% Relative Humidity.
Bale with a baler that has been fully charged and set up with bone dry hay. 
Then as the relative humidity, measured down at the windrow, reaches *70%* bale the hay.
This will produce a bale that is 18% maybe 20% Moisture, with next to zero leaf loss. 
Pick the hay up and retire to an air dry building, maybe air conditioned, and set a best bales in a nice air flow. 
Keep stored in a dry and dark environment.

With normal production coastal bermudagrass hay Baled correctly with attention to humidity and excessive handling I have seldom had hay that test below 12% CP. 
Hay cut with 14 days growth should be called rabbit hay. 
Way too rich for a horse. 
Be like having stock out on a lush wheat pasture.

Poor harvesting management can turn excellent hay into Mature Dry Cow Hay


----------



## dairyconsult

Additionally if you are running a manure separator (for cattle, pig or poulty manure) you would not need to store that much manure and can use it watering the fields (liquid phase after separation)


----------



## mlappin

Mike120 said:


> I am personally interested in more discussions on sustainable farming methods which include organic methods but are not dominated by them. With the prices for chemicals and fertilizers continuing to climb, the price of diesel, etc, etc. that's most of what we discuss here. Most of us care about sustainability because our livelihoods depend on it. We might want to open a Forum for "organic" methods although I hate to call it that. There has to be a balance and I think all of us are searching for that. Any better suggestions?


I've been really happy with no-till, and since adding cover crops the no-till has worked even better. Beginning to strongly believe in never having the ground bare and something green should always be growing even if it's nothing more than cereal rye. No-till definitely helps cut back on the expensive fuel an hard as some may find it to believe we don't use much more herbicides than before since most years since adding the cover crops we can get by with one application of round up to standing crops at or close to the minimum rate. Before in a wet spring we'd still have to do a burn down sometimes before the weeds got out of hand. Found most cover crops are easier to kill than weeds which has allowed us to cut back on the roundup and 2-4d with the proper use of adjuvants.


----------



## ForemanTX

I will probably try some on my hay pasture this year. I have already tried SEA Minerals and grasshopper both small scale,the 30-8-10 grasshopper did surprise me for the money but a pain to mix.


----------



## nhbaler282

I've tried the sea mineral and had good results even in a dry year but the grasshopper was a waste of money it drains the soil of nutrients. I like the organic approach but in a hay meadow there is no way to do it economically because you are taking away from the soil and it is too expensive to put back in the soil what you remove,try putting some corn glutton on bermuda grass at 20 lbs per 1000 square feet and it will make it grow,excellent organic fertilizer but figure the cost per acre and it want pencil out. I think that the problem is these big chemical companys are supporting the research and I am not saying anything bad about vhaby or anyone else but I think they have their hand in these books and studies that we learn about. But there is alot that we don't know about soil microbes and how important they are and if we ever do learn how to use them more efficient and can produce from a acre what we can with chemicals without the use of chemicals say goodby to corporate america chemical companys and then maybe then we could be the one's smoking the big cigars. Well just my 2 cents worth if it is worth that!


----------



## somedevildawg

nhbaler282 said:


> I've tried the sea mineral and had good results even in a dry year but the grasshopper was a waste of money it drains the soil of nutrients. I like the organic approach but in a hay meadow there is no way to do it economically because you are taking away from the soil and it is too expensive to put back in the soil what you remove,try putting some corn glutton on bermuda grass at 20 lbs per 1000 square feet and it will make it grow,excellent organic fertilizer but figure the cost per acre and it want pencil out. I think that the problem is these big chemical companys are supporting the research and I am not saying anything bad about vhaby or anyone else but I think they have their hand in these books and studies that we learn about. But there is alot that we don't know about soil microbes and how important they are and if we ever do learn how to use them more efficient and can produce from a acre what we can with chemicals without the use of chemicals say goodby to corporate america chemical companys and then maybe then we could be the one's smoking the big cigars. Well just my 2 cents worth if it is worth that!


So if the cost per acre of corn glutton won't work out......and the cost of chicken litter etc. won't work out....I guess the chemical companies are doing us a good job? I don't know, I think they are robbing us as well, but until someone comes out with a snake oil that works.....btw who's gonna fund the research to find said snake oil....you guessed it, the big chemical companies....we're in a no win situation except that with 100# of N I can get my money back....not sure about that snake oil....jury has'nt even started deliberating...


----------



## vhaby

nhbaler282 said:


> ...I think that the problem is these big chemical companys are supporting the research and I am not saying anything bad about vhaby or anyone else but I think they have their hand in these books and studies that we learn about...


NHBaler282, hope I'm not misunderstanding your statement above, but at no time in any of my research and publications of the results did the companies supporting the studies have any input into the results. You should be thankful that these companies agree to partially support studies by your state agricultural scientists. Your state legislators are certainly not providing needed funding for these studies. You would be better off donating the dollars to Texas AgriLife Research at Overton that you spend trying this and that snake oil. If all of us did that, there would be a better source of funding to conduct the studies we need to advance our production economically. I have heard that there is a movement in east Texas to generate support to the legislature for increasing funding to Texas AgriLife Research. I'm not in the loop on this, but when you hear about it, please get behind it and do your part.

For the record, when you lime your soils, do you use the ECCE 100% limestone that comes out of Georgetown or Nolanville. This much more efficient fine limestone was the result of research at the TAMU Overton Center partially funded by the Texas AgLime & Fertilizer Association and Texas Crushed Stone Company. You are the beneficiary of a greatly improved limestone that allows you to save money by not having to apply so much of the coarser ECCE 64% limestone of yesteryear; that is unless you use the coarse limestone rock from Idabell, or Hugo, Oklahoma.

If you want to get away from needing to use chemical company nitrogen, how about trying alfalfa. The bacteria called Rhizobia working symbiotically on alfalfa roots take nitrogen from the air and convert it to a form useable by the alfalfa plant so you don't need to apply N. Part of the research money that supported studies at Texas A&M-Overton to learn how to successfully grow alfalfa on selected Coastal Plain acid soils came from the big chemical companies. They got nothing in return from their investment in these studies.

I could cite additional examples, but these hopefully will allow you a better understanding of chemical company involvement in past soil fertility research studies at Overton and elsewhere in Texas and surrounding states. Be careful what you say when you don't know the whole story.

Vincent


----------



## hillside hay

somedevildawg said:


> So if the cost per acre of corn glutton won't work out......and the cost of chicken litter etc. won't work out....I guess the chemical companies are doing us a good job? I don't know, I think they are robbing us as well, but until someone comes out with a snake oil that works.....btw who's gonna fund the research to find said snake oil....you guessed it, the big chemical companies....we're in a no win situation except that with 100# of N I can get my money back....not sure about that snake oil....jury has'nt even started deliberating...


A lot of people in my area are switching over to organic. My mother is going to start certification this spring. The other land I rent I hope will remain conventional. Trying to make a profit on organic land with listed organic amendments hasn't been penciling out very well. Pretty much been landing on cost per acre between 1200- 2500 depending on what is used. Talk about snakeoil salesmen! I'm skeptical at best about most of the overpriced miracle items they are pushing. I suspect most of these studies are utilizing previous adjustments in the test plot actually depleting the soil over time as yield surpasses the inputs. When compared to organic amendments conventional fertilizers,herbicides,and practices are far cheaper and more effective. Just think about where no-till would be without roundup. Sure hate to be losing that option as propane is not as effective and way more expensive. Point being with the yields required to even pay for the use of land modern chemicals are very necessary. I hope to be able to find the balance between no-till, conventional, and organic methods on owned and rented land in the future.


----------



## nhbaler282

Mr. Vhaby,I didn't mean to hurt anybodys feelings and apologize for any thing that I said, that was info that I had heard from the public,I do wish that the state would help on the funding imstead of the chemical companys having to do it and if I can hear about pushing the legislature to help with the funding I am for it 100% hope that does happen, Thanks for the lime info but our dealer will sell you half lime and half river bottom sand (this is from employees) and it has come from any where you want it to come from,it is funny how ammonia nitrate comes from the same bin as urea so you never know what you are getting. That is why I started buying my own fertilizer by the truck load from a dealer in another state.


----------



## vhaby

My feelings were not hurt. Misleading information needed to be corrected.

Sorry that you can't get the good, fine limestone from Georgetown or Nolanville. I'll bet that if you request that your dealer get it, or threaten that you will go elsewhere to purchase it, your current dealer will make the effort to get the fine limestone. Know that it needs to be hauled in covered trailers and if it feels like coarse sand, it is not the fine ECCE 100% limestone that feels like talcum powder.

Also, ammonium nitrate and urea cannot come from the same bin. If these two nitrogen sources get in contact with each other, they turn to a liquid mess. Your fertilizer dealer most likely brings in nitrogen from American Plant Food Corp. This company sells urea and ammonium sulfate. They mix these two nitrogen materials to produce a 33.5% nitrogen fertilizer that many unsuspecting producers think is ammonium nitrate.


----------



## JD3430

Wow, good read in these last few posts.
I have to be honest, I put full faith and trust in my local FS Growmark that they're applying quality materials for my hard earned money.
Would suck to find out I'm getting lime cut with sand or less than pure N.


----------



## endrow

JD3430 said:


> Wow, good read in these last few posts.
> I have to be honest, I put full faith and trust in my local FS Growmark that they're applying quality materials for my hard earned money.
> Would suck to find out I'm getting lime cut with sand or less than pure N.


I am sure everything you buy from Growmark has a stated analysis. We buy a lot from them . Did you ever ask what quarry the lime comes from .


----------



## vhaby

nhbaler282 said:


> Thanks for the lime info but our dealer will sell you half lime and half river bottom sand (this is from employees) and it has come from any where you want it to come from,...


Guess it can be done, but it is difficult for me to imagine that a limestone vendor would take the time to mix half limestone and half sand in his batch mixer and apply this mixture at a ton or two per acre to a multi-acre field. That would cost more in time, hauling, and labor than it would save him by skimming you for limestone that only costs about $5 per ton at the quarry, while the greatest expense for limestone is the freight (fuel) cost. Yes, the low 50 to 60% ECCE limestone that comes from whereever has some sand sized and larger limestone particles in it that are worthless for correcting soil acidity, and it can feel like sand.


----------

