# Grasshopper fertilizer



## kubota9

used some Grasshopper liquid fertilizer this past summer on alfalfa with good results. Has anyone else used it and if so what was your results?


----------



## rjmoses

Never heard of it--tell me more.

Ralph


----------



## MikeRF

rjmoses said:


> Never heard of it--tell me more.
> 
> Ralph


I'm all ears too. I like the idea of liquid fertilizer in the spring. Should be easier to get better placement and more even crop uptake. All info welcome


----------



## vhaby

kubota9, What rate did you apply and what was the percentage nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc. in the liquid that you applied. If I understand correctly, this is a foliar applied fertilizer, right?

If this is a foliar fertilizer, one must be careful about giving all the yield credit to it because alfalfa and other forages take up much more nutrients than can be taken up from one foliar treatment, so your alfalfa would have mined nutrients from the soil. Normally, if one foliar-applies sufficient nutrients to account for what is in the forage at harvest, the foliar treatment would initially have burned the forage.


----------



## haybine

Tried Grasshopper last year for the first time. There was soil moisture when I sprayed but did not get any more rain on that cutting. Grasshopper did not appear to have done any good but wasnt sure if lack of growth was due to lack of rain. This year I put out my standard Ammonium Nitrate granual fertilizer on the first three cuttings according to soil test. On the forth cutting i thought i would try Grasshopper again but wanted to be sure of its results. I left a 50' wide strip down the middle of my field unfertilized. After 4 weeks of growth, there was no difference in the sprayed vs. the unsprayed. I gave it a chance but was not impressed. Also my soil test in the fall was extremely low on P and K. Wondered if this may have been due to mining nutrients from the soil. I wont try it again.


----------



## swmnhay

I wouldn't use a foliar fertilizer for a complete fertilizer program because you would be mining the soil.Maybe use it as a tool to get a yield boost but I even question that if you have a very good return on investment.I've thought of trying some but never have.The costs for the actual NPK are quite high.

A nieghbor was using another brand foliar feeding corn & beans for yrs.You could see his crops were not up to par with others.He then rented another farm that was fertilized regularly.He seen the light than.His yellow fertilizer tanks disapeered.He did some soil zone sampling.He bought a dry fertilizer spreader.And now his crops look much better.

The sad thing is he mined the soils down when P & K were relativly cheap and now he is trying to build them back up with much higher fertilizer prices.


----------



## NDVA HAYMAN

I think Cy and the good DR. have it right. Liquid applications are used to enhance the nutrients that are available to the plants and not to replace a good sound fertilizer program. I have looked into using Bio Tech Nutrients and some others. Maybe the liquid carbon would be the only thing that I would ever try and I'm not convinced of that. A good fertilizer spreader might be the best investment. Mike


----------



## swmnhay

I ran across some pricing on the Grasshopper fertilizer.Did some quick figuring.$1700 a ton.WOW.Didn't take the time to figure actual cost of NP&K but the analisis was lower than what you normaly would get.So that puts cost higher yet per # available nutrients.

Although it's analisis was higher than some other FUFU juice products out there.


----------



## kubota9

Thanks for your responses. This is what I have found with research by calling users and by first hand use.
First let me say that I have tried several liquid fertilizers with no or negetive results. This one gave me a response on alfalfa, grass, and small grain.
I have learned that plants need X amount of nutrients to perform. The traditional concept is to give it in the growing medium ie: soil, water in hydroponics.
I have learned that with chemical granular fertilizers you apply X amount of nutrients to the soil. The PH, moisture, soil type, have a bearing on the amount of each nutrient that is made avalible to the plant. As well as how it is applied, top, in row, mixed in root zone, etc.
So it is obvious that the plants do not get all of the x nutrients that are put out. I have not found any info to give me an accurate example of this. I believe that one would have to tissue sample extensively to find this out. The hydroponic guys may be able to answer this better.
With the grasshopper, the absorbtion rate that this product has is near 100%, therefore the nutrients applied are going into the plant. So less in pounds is needed. This is how foliar works. I have found university research that supports this.
I have also applied as a starter and got good results. so this can be applied to the soil but it needs to be real close to the seed.
The whole name of the game is to give the plants what it needs to obtain maximum production. This seems to me as just another method to do this. from the top down instead of bottom up so to speak.
I have also talked to a user that soil samples religously and he states that his soil nutrient levels have maintained, no mining. I too was concerned about this due to experiences with other products. I can say that if you have good reserves of nutrients in your soil, the visual results will be less. I believe this is due to the plants are there 100% of the time and have been getting what they need from sprouting so when one applies this after the plant is x days old, there is less response due to it having what it needs. Same reasoning with variable rate application, apply what is needed where it is needed. The two concepts are vary different in the way they operate, dry vs liquid. I find it works for me and has saved me on average, $30 an acre. Thanks.


----------



## vhaby

Kubota9,
You stated, "_I have found university research that supports this._" Can you point viewers in the direction of the supporting university research that you have found? Please include data with the accompanying statistical analysis as well as links to the reports and journal papers.

Normally, one foliar application of a low concentration of N-P-K will not provide the total N-P-K that ends up in the plant at harvest. Foliar application of macronutrients works only as a supplement to residual plant-available nutrients that are in the soil, or that are applied to the soil as fertilizers, manures, etc.

Foliar nitrogen applied to hard red winter wheat at the flag leaf growth stage has been shown to increase the protein content of the wheat grain, but had little effect on the grain yield in Montana.

In the case of micronutrients like iron and zinc, these can effectively be foliar applied to help correct a deficiency in plants. Examples include iron deficient grain sorghum on high pH soils, and zinc deficiency in corn on similar soils. In these situations, the residual iron and zinc are "tied up" or made unavailable by the high calcium carbonate levels in these high pH soils.


----------



## haybine

Kubota9......I did a lot of research on this stuff before I spent any money on it. It was hard to believe some of the reports I read but I could possibly see that there may be something to this 100% absorbtion and getting all the nutrients. So I tried it on my Jiggs bermuda, twice. Even left an unfertilized test strip the second time. No results. My questions are answered, reguardless of what the research says. Granual fertilizer gives me results, every time. Grasshopper does NOT.


----------



## shortrow

Is that the stuff TSC sells?


----------

