Ga prime
"boomless spray nozzle spraying a thirty foot swath"
Sounds like a good nozzle. What kind of spray nozzle are you using?
John 250
"The "foliar fertilizer" thing is BOGUS."
There is a good debate to be had over the best uses of a foliar product. However, the benefits of foliar fertilizer are 'Settled Science'. Some of the well respected, peer reviewed studies of foliar fertilizer are as old as 1950.
Here are some examples that can easily be found on the web:
Dr. H. B. Tukey - renowned plant researcher and Head of Michigan State University's Department of Horticulture
The value of foliar feeding was proven many years ago at Michigan State College by Dr. H. B. Tukey….. Plants can absorb nutrients 8 to 10 times more efficiently through their leaf surfaces than through their roots. When applying nutrients to the leaf, the nutrients move through the stomata downward through the plant--at the rate of about a foot an hour. When applying nutrients to the leaves in soluble forms, as much as 95 percent of what is applied may be used by the plant. If a similar amount is applied to the soil about 10 percent of it is available.
Charlie O'Dell-Virginia Tech
A small amount of plant nutrients, foliar-applied, can replace a much greater amount that is soil applied, and is immediately available,…Products for foliar application provide the fastest response.
Wesley Totten and Bert McCarty-Clemson University
Most research indicates that with urea, for instance, liquid and dry (granular) formulations produce little differences in turf growth and quality. However, previous research with urea noted foliar feeding accounted for 95 percent of plant use compared to approximately 10 percent use from soil applications.
These were just a few examples.
In some areas of farming, foliar has been the primary form of fertilization for decades. Foliar was not as popular decades ago because it was often unavailable and more expensive. There are only a few plants in the US that can produce a quality foliar product. I think foliar fertilizer has gained recent popularity as the price of commercial granular goes up. I know this is the case for us – on our ranch. We started supplementing with foliar about 5 years ago and are now starting to use foliar as a complete replacement in some cases. We run 350+ mama cows and roll 3,000-5,000 round bales per year. However, there are still some cases where we need commercial fertilizer or chicken litter.
Jogeephus
"spray it with 1 pint of liquid iron"
I agree. Foliar iron and also foliar potash do a very good job at improving color. This also makes sense regarding the foliar discussion. 1 pint of foliar iron will probably produce better results than 50-100lbs of dry. Once again – it's hard to make a pound for pound comparison as some have tried.
Jogeephus
"product that made water wetter".
I've seen some of these products and they do work well – breaking down the surface pressure of the water allowing better saturation for the herbicide.
Jogeephus
"What concerns me about the use of some of these liquids is that the chelation effect can and will prematurely release nutrients from your soil. In a sense, they will mine your nutrient stockpile."
Boron is the ingredient in this list that can and does release or untie some of these locked up nutrients. You're right; this can mine your nutrient stockpile. But the product would have to contain 3-5X more boron than .02%. Many organic products use large amounts of Boron combined with bacteria to trick the soil into releasing an unhealthy amount of nutrients. In fact, any results from some of the 'new age' organic products on the market are a direct result of this process.
Dave
"A ton of grass that tests at 12.5% protein has 40 pounds of N in it. That 4.5 pounds of N isn't going to go very far towards growing grass. It is going to take an awful lot of this stuff to grow 3 ton of grass per acre."
I think you may unintentionally be making the case for the foliar argument. If a ton of grass at 12.5% protein has 40 pounds of N, then 4.5 additional pounds of N (from foliar) directly into the leaf is huge – approximately 11.25% more. It would bump it to 14% with very little cost.
You don't get the full 40 lbs of N from you fertilizer. With your formula, the grass may have started at 11% and was then bumped to 12.5% with a certain amount of commercial fertilizer. The grass didn't start at 0% protein and was then bumped to 12.5% by using 200lbs of granular. If your grass receives most of your granular application (which it does not) then applying 300 lbs of a 30-10-10 granular (with the 12.5% - 40 lbs of N formula) would bump a 12% protein to 39% or 40% protein. Just not possible.
The biggest issue with foliar fertilizers is quality. If the product does not have the ability to absorb thru the leaf – then the value is very minimal. Urea, Potassium Nitrate, Calcium Nitrate, etc all have different solubility and absorption capabilities. In fact, the grade, molecular structure, purity, and combination with other chemicals all have a very big influence on a fertilizer's ability to absorb. As a result, there are many ineffective foliar fertilizers on the market. Some companies throw a product together, add a certain amount of NPK, mix it in water and then call it foliar. The customers of these products may be very unsatisfied.
Other products have the correct formulation and provide superior results. To try to criticize these products without proper knowledge can be very difficult. It would be similar to someone coming on the Cattle Today board and asking about a 14% feed. Without knowing the source of protein, the byproducts, the TDN, the palatability, etc, it would be very hard to judge this product. There are many 14% feeds, but they are not the same.
