# Stumbled onto something with fertilizer



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Over the winter (12/19), I fertilized many of my fields with spent mushroom compost (a mix of aged hay, topsoil, poultry litter and lime). Looks like a light fluffy topsoil.

On 2 of the fields, the truckers delivered too much and I had to apply it at heavier rate than normal. I usually apply about 1/2" thick. That's enough to make the field look dusted in black, but not smothering the grass. However, on these 2 fields, it was more like 1"-1.5" thick. This heavier application covered the grass to the point of almost smothering it. Just the tips of the grass poking through. I was nervous it would cause dead spots. Was always told by the locals NOT to smother grass with it.
However, the grass rebounded stronger than ever! By April, there was no sign of bare spots. 
I set records on both fields, nearly doubling my previous best yields on one of the 2 fields and 50% more on the other. I can't believe after 3-5 applications I have discovered this.
Wishing I had done this to increase yields on previous fields. 
I have to learn most everything by trial & error (mostly error).


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

How many tons per acre before/after? Ever done a soil test on this ground?


----------



## danwi (Mar 6, 2015)

The grass is dormant over winter shouldn't be any different then when it emerges from the ground in spring. I never do it enough my self but soil test should show a difference, But you have already found out yield was better. I guess if the price is right just spread more. Wouldn't be like commercial fertilizer where you are afraid of wasting money. Other thing that maybe helping is you are getting some organic or microbial benefits.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

danwi said:


> The grass is dormant over winter shouldn't be any different then when it emerges from the ground in spring.


This is my thought also, as long as it's not 5" or something.

Larry


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

danwi said:


> The grass is dormant over winter shouldn't be any different then when it emerges from the ground in spring. I never do it enough my self but soil test should show a difference, But you have already found out yield was better. I guess if the price is right just spread more. Wouldn't be like commercial fertilizer where you are afraid of wasting money. Other thing that maybe helping is you are getting some organic or microbial benefits.


Price is definitely good-its free. 

It does have organic and microbial benefits. Ive watched them make it and lime is also in the mix, so Im getting lime, too. Not sure if the lime is still as effective as when it was originally added.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

slowzuki said:


> How many tons per acre before/after? Ever done a soil test on this ground?


Both fields about 12 acres. Each field got 10 large tri axle loads. Hard to say how much it weighs. Not as heavy as dirt, though. I think 15 tons per truck load. So 150 tons per 12 acres. If 12 acres is used it was applied at about 12-13 tons per acre. I used a large Hagedorn spreader and it seemed like a heaped full spreader did about 3/4 an acre.


----------



## danwi (Mar 6, 2015)

So your regular rate was around 4 ton per acre? Do your hayfields all get that much every year?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

danwi said:


> So your regular rate was around 4 ton per acre? Do your hayfields all get that much every year?


I've done the fields 5 of the 7 years I've been haying them. 
Id say the "normal" rate was probably more like 5-7 tons per acre and I about doubled it to 12-13 this past winter on 2 small fields
It doubled my hay yields on the 2 fields where they delivered too much of it.

One other observation: I did all the fields a bit earlier this year. Usually I do them in February. This year in November/December.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

How’s much nutrient runoff do you suppose you had spreading on frozen ground?


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

stack em up said:


> How's much nutrient runoff do you suppose you had spreading on frozen ground?


@1" or less this is approved for winter spreading on grass hay fields. It stays put pretty good .


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

These type of composts are about 1-1-1. Probbably takes 75 ton per acre to replace commercial N. One needs to be careful applying year after year at high rates . SALT build up can get things out of wack big time . Seen a neighboring farm with high salt levels , not good.. There is always the Olde- To Much of a Good Thing . Id stick within the 1"or less


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

endrow said:


> @1" or less this is approved for winter spreading on grass hay fields. It stays put pretty good .


I suppose length of dormant grass also contributes to holding capacity.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

It wasn't spread on frozen ground.

There was no run off.

It happened on 2 smaller fields of the 15 or so fields I do.

This is the first time I spread it >1" thick, due to over-delivery of the product and it averaged 1.5".

I don't do it every year (5 of last 7 years)

My normal application is 1"

Although it doesn't have the nitrogen of chemical fertilizers, it does have organic and microbial benefits chemical fertilizers do not have.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

On line quick info brochure

http://www.mushroomcompost.org/hay-fields.html


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Salt info. Also has nitrogen, micro and macro nutrient info.

http://www.mushroomcompost.org/files/theme/NPK2(1).pdf


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

There is actually N in organic matter. It’s a highly stable form so leaching is not an issue. What is interesting to me is that they show application rates in depth. Not pounds/tons per acre. Quite a few guys use poultry litter, have their spreader scales calibrated to the gnats ass for pounds per acre. Too much will burn the shit out of the crop. I see mushroom compost is pretty low in fertility, would take an insane amount to provide appropriate nutrients to a demanding crop. The OM is a nice benefit, wouldn’t take long to turn some ground into peat!


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Lbs/acre


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

They likely don’t give lbs per acre due to weight being so variable on moisture content.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

JD3430 said:


> Lbs/acre


Am I reading that correctly, 1" is applying over 800# of N and 900# of K? And it's free?

And the second table is doubled but still 1" (typo?, should it be 2"?).

Larry


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

Doing the math 1" depth would equal 37.3 ton acre.

2" 74.6 ton per acre

Typically feedlot manure is spread at 10 ton per acre here


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

r82230 said:


> Am I reading that correctly, 1" is applying over 800# of N and 900# of K? And it's free?
> 
> And the second table is doubled but still 1" (typo?, should it be 2"?).
> 
> Larry


It is free. Even the delivery is free. They can't get rid of it fast enough.

Its not a perfect answer, nothing is.

One other thing I have noticed is it keeps the top of the ground more moist when it's dry and it seems to attract more earth worms. I would think this might have an affect of breaking up compacted soil to some extent.

I probably put one large Hagedorn spreader heaped up pretty good per 3/4-1 acre. Can't imagine there's more than 15 tons per acre.

75tons/acre would be 5" thick and kill everything.

Corn farmers put down a LOT of it. I'd guess they're doing 3-4" thick based on visual observation.

In the first picture below, look under the tractor & spreader. That's about how thick it normally gets applied


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

JD3430 said:


> It wasn't spread on frozen ground.
> 
> There was no run off.
> 
> ...


Just curious; is this the by-product from a WWTP? We did it on/off for several years when it was free. It is not any more.

It has to be spread with an auger/slinger truck because it is moist and 'chunky' sometimes. I go over the fields with a chain harrow after it is spread. Sometimes the stuff is so rich is will burn if not harrowed and at least some moisture. If it is really hot where there is little to no morning/evening condensation it will burn. Ours is more grey than black though.

I never did it without a soil sample first.

Anybody else out there using WWTP by-product?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

dvcochran said:


> Just curious; is this the by-product from a WWTP? We did it on/off for several years when it was free. It is not any more.
> 
> It has to be spread with an auger/slinger truck because it is moist and 'chunky' sometimes. I go over the fields with a chain harrow after it is spread. Sometimes the stuff is so rich is will burn if not harrowed and at least some moisture. If it is really hot where there is little to no morning/evening condensation it will burn. Ours is more grey than black though.
> 
> ...


WWTP meaning "Waste water Treatment Plant"?

No, it is not. I wont use that stuff. Ever.

Mushroom compost is decayed hay, water, lime, poultry litter, horse manure, topsoil and possibly some sawdust. Different companies make their own blends, each unique to their beliefs on whats best.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

JD3430 said:


> WWTP meaning "Waste water Treatment Plant"?
> 
> No, it is not. I wont use that stuff. Ever.
> 
> Mushroom compost is decayed hay, water, lime, poultry litter, horse manure, topsoil and possibly some sawdust. Different companies make their own blends, each unique to their beliefs on whats best.


You have to get past where it came from and understand what it is. The process uses ag lime, different wood products coarser than sawdust, UV light and depending on saliency distillers grain. The water used is dechlorinated before use so it is cleaner than tap water. The solids come out first and fully; that is anything from automobiles (I have seen this), to bodies/parts ( I have seen this) to just what you expect. They have to come out so the liquid can pass through the various types of particle filtration used, which goes down to as low as 1 micron. Average pH starts at around <6 and comes out at 12+ from the processing. This is the problem with using it sometimes as it is too hot if you are not very careful. I little dab will truly do it.

Slake has little to no odor since there is no chlorine and smells closer to lime than anything I can describe.

You have no problem using poultry litter (an animal that truly eats is own feces) and horse manure. Assuming neither is treated/processed before using it is not much of a leap seeing that using slake us safer and requires less. IMHO.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

dvcochran said:


> You have to get past where it came from and understand what it is. The process uses ag lime, different wood products coarser than sawdust, UV light and depending on saliency distillers grain. The water used is dechlorinated before use so it is cleaner than tap water. The solids come out first and fully; that is anything from automobiles (I have seen this), to bodies/parts ( I have seen this) to just what you expect. They have to come out so the liquid can pass through the various types of particle filtration used, which goes down to as low as 1 micron. Average pH starts at around <6 and comes out at 12+ from the processing. This is the problem with using it sometimes as it is too hot if you are not very careful. I little dab will truly do it.
> 
> Slake has little to no odor since there is no chlorine and smells closer to lime than anything I can describe.
> 
> You have no problem using poultry litter (an animal that truly eats is own feces) and horse manure. Assuming neither is treated/processed before using it is not much of a leap seeing that using slake us safer and requires less. IMHO.


Oh I know what it is.

I don't know if WWTP is even allowed in my area. 
Thought never crossed my mind to use it. Too gross.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

It’s not a gross issue usually more the contamination issue. Like wood ash you can end up with stuff on your land like heavy metals that are hard to remove.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

slowzuki said:


> It's not a gross issue usually more the contamination issue. Like wood ash you can end up with stuff on your land like heavy metals that are hard to remove.


The only way I could picture contamination is by using too much. The result would be burned up fields which would neutralize on their own with average rain in a year or two. Not long term contamination like heavy metals. At least not from our WWTP processes. Even if something (metal, etc...) was high in the influent process water it would be filtered out before discharging.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

No it's not an issue of burned up fields it's an issue of compounds that don't break down sitting in your field - being absorbed into forage and consumed by animals and concentrating in meat or milk for example.

Lead and cadmium are very hard to filter out, and there's a ton of persistent organic compounds that make it through the wwtp processes. I would be cautious about how much you apply. Best saved for golf courses and golfers to trod around on.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

What about drugs (legal and illegal) used or unused in the sewage? I don't care if it's High Blood Pressure, blood thinner, stomach acid reducers, pain meds or MJ, the human body doesn't destroy it all, I do believe. And the ones just flushed that's another story.

Larry


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I heard it was being used down south of me and it leaches into the Chesapeake Bay watershed where they're catching fish and aquatic mammals with traces of opioids and other drugs in their flesh


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

Reverse osmosis filtering (most common one used) is going to catch things like drugs. Definitely heavy metals like lead are filtered as it is comparatively big and pretty easy to catch. That said I do not think it is as big a problem in our southern region anyway. Here is a link from closer to your area.

https://news.wisc.edu/do-treatment-plants-effectively-remove-drugs-hormones-from-wastewater/

I am sure you can find site the say the opposite though. In some of the really small municipalities where they are still using older filtration methods I could see things getting through but it would still be a microscopic levels per volume.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

JD3430 said:


> I heard it was being used down south of me and it leaches into the Chesapeake Bay watershed where they're catching fish and aquatic mammals with traces of opioids and other drugs in their flesh


Why would you not think it is in your other water sources then? Other than filtered municipal water.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

dvcochran said:


> Reverse osmosis filtering (most common one used) is going to catch things like drugs. Definitely heavy metals like lead are filtered as it is comparatively big and pretty easy to catch. That said I do not think it is as big a problem in our southern region anyway. Here is a link from closer to your area.
> https://news.wisc.edu/do-treatment-plants-effectively-remove-drugs-hormones-from-wastewater/
> 
> I am sure you can find site the say the opposite though. In some of the really small municipalities where they are still using older filtration methods I could see things getting through but it would still be a microscopic levels per volume.


Guy here been using it for 30+ years. No issues that I'm aware of, always raises great crops. Stinks to absolute high heaven, but the price is right.

City of Des Moines IA was dumping excess nitrates directly into the Mississippi River a number of years ago. Still doing it far as I know.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

dvcochran said:


> Why would you not think it is in your other water sources then? Other than filtered municipal water.


I didn't say it wasn't.  Maybe Im not understanding you. I'm simply stating that I use free mushroom compost and I don't want to use waste water treatment sludge for a number of reasons. Also, I've read articles that it gets into the watershed and shows up in wildlife. It also smells and there's a lot of homes and sensitive properties I cut that would not allow me to use it. 
If you want to use it, please, knock yourself out. More power to ya. I have no dog in your fight. Peace out.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

danwi said:


> The grass is dormant over winter shouldn't be any different then when it emerges from the ground in spring. I never do it enough my self but soil test should show a difference, But you have already found out yield was better. I guess if the price is right just spread more. Wouldn't be like commercial fertilizer where you are afraid of wasting money. Other thing that maybe helping is you are getting some organic or microbial benefits.


I'm betting a lot on the microbial action. I picked up a MicroBiometer test kit, have found some pretty interesting things.

Microbial precense is high here on the home farm, but it always gets some manure even if just a thin spread. Home farm also tends to yield the best year after year but also has the most tile.

Tests are also higher in fields that may have been hayfields over five years ago.

The winter pastures test pretty low even with the added OG from being worked every spring after we get the cows off.

My lowest testing ground even though technically its "better" ground has only been in no-till for three years and only 2 with cover crops. Yields are consistently good on this ground but not as good as home or a field across the road that was hay.

Good microbial action unlocks nutrients that would otherwise be unavailable to plants.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I'm not talking about if you can clear up your contaminated drinking water after spreading those things on your land, I'm talking about the tissue samples of plants grown in those conditions moving that contamination into a food product.

I can't imagine they are using RO to treat municipal waste for farm application, the cost would be rediculous.



dvcochran said:


> Reverse osmosis filtering (most common one used) is going to catch things like drugs. Definitely heavy metals like lead are filtered as it is comparatively big and pretty easy to catch. That said I do not think it is as big a problem in our southern region anyway. Here is a link from closer to your area.
> https://news.wisc.edu/do-treatment-plants-effectively-remove-drugs-hormones-from-wastewater/
> 
> I am sure you can find site the say the opposite though. In some of the really small municipalities where they are still using older filtration methods I could see things getting through but it would still be a microscopic levels per volume.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I think the meth labs and drugs flushed down the toilet that get into the city solid sewage plants is a big problem.

I would prefer the mushroom compost because it's biggest ingredient is decayed hay, followed by horse manure, poultry litter, water, topsoil and lime. 
Any kind of human waste or drugs flushed down toilet scares me and grosses me out, but I don't have a problem with someone else doing it. I realize that mushroom soil isn't available everywhere and maybe WW is only thing available for free.

IMO, anyone can armchair quarterback a persons choices in life. So long as you're not hurting anyone, fertilize what you want


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Neighbor used to spread pelletized human waste from Gary or East Chicago, got to be careful with that, a lot of heavy metals in human waste. When my uncle had a dump site here the county was very particular about how much was applied every year.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

slowzuki said:


> I'm not talking about if you can clear up your contaminated drinking water after spreading those things on your land, I'm talking about the tissue samples of plants grown in those conditions moving that contamination into a food product.
> 
> I can't imagine they are using RO to treat municipal waste for farm application, the cost would be rediculous.


RO is used heavily in the US. Brackish river water is used for process, RO filtered and returned.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Yes but the metals and contamination is left on the sludge side that is spread. The RO clean side water is recycled for process water.


----------



## skyrydr2 (Oct 25, 2015)

Yup the processed water is wicked clean! Almost too clean as it takes out a bunch of minerals too. But as mentioned it is not the water that is being used its the sludge out of the tanks and off the filters! 
That stuff stinks too! I have seen it used... its a grey nasty muddy looking goop. 
But now here in Mass they cook it and turn it into a pelletized material that doesn't smell and spreads pretty nice. This is the only stuff they will let you use for any food crops or grazing pastures.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

skyrydr2 said:


> Yup the processed water is wicked clean! Almost too clean as it takes out a bunch of minerals too. But as mentioned it is not the water that is being used its the sludge out of the tanks and off the filters!
> That stuff stinks too! I have seen it used... its a grey nasty muddy looking goop.
> But now here in Mass they cook it and turn it into a pelletized material that doesn't smell and spreads pretty nice. This is the only stuff they will let you use for any food crops or grazing pastures.


Never thought about it but is this the pelletized lime they sell in bags at all the DIY stores and such? It does look the same.


----------



## skyrydr2 (Oct 25, 2015)

dvcochran said:


> Never thought about it but is this the pelletized lime they sell in bags at all the DIY stores and such? It does look the same.


 No this stuff is a very dark grey almost black colored material. It works good for a year or 2 then you need to reapply. Pelletized lime is snow white unless it has been fortified with something else.


----------

