What to spray with?

Help Support CattleToday:

Dave":39xsj6d2 said:
How do you figure that applying your product will stop phosphorous build up? The phosphorous is there in the chicken litter. The plants only use just so much of it. If it is applied at a level higher than the plants can use and is removed from the field it will build up. If it is used by bugs in the soil it is just temporarily tied up and will be released when they die. It either builds up, runsoff, or gets to the level where it will leach.
I always get a kick out of those selling organic products that sell their product by slamming conventional methods.
Dave

I do not mean to slam any thing, I just make statements that are true. If it makes the chemical companies look bad, that is not my fault, I am just stating the facts.
Once again, I am miss quoted, I did not say that my program STOPS phosphorus build up. I said that My Customers that are on the program that also use a lot of chicken litter do not have the build up problem. The plants can use more of the nutrients that are in the ground when the microbial life is higher. The bugs in the soil do not TAKE UP the nutrients in the soil they decompose them and make them available to the root system that in turn gives of sugar that the bugs eat. That is why anything grown organically has a high sugar content.
I hope this answers your question,
Brad
 
Ranchcop":2fe9ax65 said:
I do not mean to slam any thing, I just make statements that are true. If it makes the chemical companies look bad, that is not my fault, I am just stating the facts.
Brad
Thanks Brad. This is the kind of info that the grower needs to know. It won't break the giant chemical companies, but could help the grower save and make some extra $$$.
 
LazyM,
Now I know why I did not understand. With my program I do not put nitrates on the ground. Our nitrogen comes from Nitrogen Fixing Micro Organisms that produce nitrogen from the air we breath, which is 78% nitrogen. Then when we apply liquid fish fertilizer the majority of the nitrogen that it has in it is taken up foliar.
I am not saying anything is wrong with properly composted manure of any type and agree with you about composting. I am just saying that around here they scoop the chicken litter out of the houses and spread it directly on the field. That is why I am saying you need to put micro organisms on top to decompose it.
Ok Fillers, If you have a 10-10-10 or any verity numbers that do not add up to 100%. You just subtract the total of the three numbers from 100 the remainder is filler. Fillers can be anything, salt, sawdust, rocks, sand, and as you can see toxic waste.
Example,
10-10-10 = 30 100 -30 = 70 so you would have 70% fillers. That 70% can have toxic waste in it and nobody has to tell you anything. Plus the fertilizer companies get paid by the Companies that need to get rid of the toxic waste, to spread it on your fields.
I totally agree with the clovers. If you checked out my site (for free information purposes only) you would see beautiful fields of crimson clover, it is a great source of nitrogen and also a great source for organic matter for sandy soils. I have seen some studies that say some types of clover can put up as much as 300lbs of nitrogen to the acre.
Brad
 
The idea that a 10-10-10 fertilizer is 70 percent filler is wrong. That is the percent of N-P-K. They all come in different forms. The conversion factor for P2O5 to P is 2.29, so if there is 10 pounds of P and it is in the form of P2O5 there is 22.9 pounds. There are fillers added in some cases but at no where near the rate that you at claiming.
As for soil microbs making phosphorous more avialable. That is possible although not too probable but the proper pH has the greatest effect on phosphorous availability. However, the plants are not going to use the phosphorous to make more sugar and thus remove more phosphorous. Phosphorous is primarily used by the plant for root growth and not used for sugar production. This is why there is little removal of excess P. It remains in the roots which eventually die off and the P returns to the soil.
I don't work for a chemical or fertilizer but I am a certified crop adviser from the American Society of Agronomy. I know enough about agronomy, nutrients, plant growth, etc to say there is some limited truth in the claims but there is also a lot of snake oil. I see more snake oil than I do truth.
Dave
 
Dave,
I respect your training in the Ag. Field and your Certification. I do have a question, How much of your training and education is in the Organic Field vs. the Chemical Field. They compare like apples to oranges. I have used both and been trained in both Chemical and Organic, I for one think that Organic is a better way to go in the long run.
I don't know who is right as far as the NPK percentages, What I said was what I was taught. I never have claimed to be 100% right 100% of the time, are you? My main point to that whole topic was the toxic waste that Can Be put into Chemical Fertilizers which is 20%…. Dave are you saying that was wrong? You said nothing about the poor guy that did not even know that there are fillers in Chemical Fertilizer.
Once again I am miss quoted. I never said that the Microbes turn Phosphorus into sugar. I wont waste my time rewriting my statement you can go back and look. Are you saying that Organically Grown Crops do not have a higher sugar content? Are you claiming that when I say that I have customers that use high levels of Chicken Litter and my product, do not have a Phosphorus build up problem? I agree that the roots die off, do you know what decomposes those dead roots?
Now unless you have the research to back up the you claims made, I suggest you refrain from the Snake Oil talk.
I have put My Research on the posts or at least told these fine folks where they can find it on the internet. Are you saying that all these Researchers at these fine Universities are Wrong, Dave?
Like I said, I don't claim to be 100% right, and I have even apologized for not making myself clear in some of my posts. But ONE thing I would never do is to do anything to Purposely Hurt the Livestock, Environment or the Rancher or Farmers pocket book!
Brad
P.S. Dave when you got your education and your $175.00 certification, did you ever learn about Organics?

Note, to all other reader,
I do not want to seem like I am arguing with anyone, but I can not sit back and let a few folks say that I am a snake oil salesman. This is my families business and can not sit back and be attacked and not respond.
 
TheLazyM":2rugxona said:
maybe i've been lost. tell me if i;m wrong please. lime is an acid. it raises the ph in th soil. nitrigen{nitrates uses up the ph. so hence nitrogen need ph in order to complete the cycle to fertlizing the soil completes. this chicken scat organic fertilzer has to be composed right. which is made into nitrogen so you'll need ph to complete the cycle right? lime is crushed rock so is it not organic? i could be completely wrong here and if so someone please give me a clue.
as to the orginal post, it has been said and i found it to be true in my few years manging my land that if you keep the soil health in which helps keep the grass health you dont have much problems with weeds. in times when you have to spray you can use a dose of 2-4-d sure it'll hurt the clovers, i try to use the weekest dose i can and i rarely hurt clovers. i dont usely have to spray when clovers are on no way. they have to be growing be for it'll hurt them.i fravorite spray is GLY-4. it kills everything but mixing it up weak like 20ozs in a 25 gal. tank will kill weeds and leave grass alone.

You've got it backwards. Lime is an alkaline. As PH increases it becomes more basic; as it decreases it becomes more acidic.
 
Dave- A question. If there is 10 pounds of P in the form of P205 and that equals 22.9 pounds, what is the other 12.9 pounds? I may not have understood what you were saying. P controls root,seed and flower development, as well as the processes of cell division and sugar formation. We get the sweetest berries when plant available P is in the correct range.
 
The P is elemental phosphorous. The chemical form that it most often comes in is P2O5. 22.9 pounds of P2O5 has 10 pounds of elemental phosphorous in it. The amount of P removed will vary by crop and how that plant utilizes the P. I couldn't find the number for berries in my books but I will give you some examples. The Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook lists the nutrient uptake and removal by specific crops. Most of the grasses have about a .2% P per pound of dry matter removed. That is 4 pounds per ton. Corn is 0.28%, barley 0.32%. On a fresh harvested basis apples are 0.02% while pineapples are 0.35%. The majority, but not all, of the P used by plants is in the roots. That is why the P is not removed.
As for me saying that I am a CCA. I did that to show that I do know something about this subject. If we were debating welding I wouldn't have jumped in because I don't know a lot about welding. There is a little more to becoming a CCA than paying the dues. if you don't think so go take the test and let me know how you did. And I do in fact work much more with organic nutrients and organic farmers than I ever do with chemicals. Working with farmers and their soil, nutrient, plant relationship is what I do everyday. The only reason I put my dog in this fight is things were said or certainly implied that were dead wrong and not being challenged. I know I would have to see the proven research, years of research, before I would invest my time or money in this. At this time I haven't seen any. And yes I do know the researchers. I am on a first name basis with the ones in my region.

Dave
 
Dave,
I never came to this forum to start a fight, or am I looking for one. I have given links, search recommendations, and researchers names. I did not feel that posting page after page of research was the correct thing to do in this forum. The research is out there and free for folks to look up on the internet. Believe it or not I try to keep my posts short and sweet. Maybe that is why I am misunderstood sometimes.
As far as being dead wrong, I am still waiting for the proof from your end.
May I suggest we keep any further arguments on private messages, and not waste the valuable time of these fine folks.
 
Dave
Glad to see you come in on this one. I'm a custom applicator and have had some problems knowing where some of these claims are coming from. An example is about the toxic waste in our fertilizers. I know that potash is mined so where is this coming from? I read and reread the answer to my question on this and can't see where it came from. I want learn but I need to be shown some accurate data.
 
Angus,
I am not say you put out toxic waste or that all applicators put out toxic waste. What I am saying is that the EPA allows it to happen, and I believe that I have shown data on this forum. Dont believe me? Look up a search on the net for Toxic Waste in Chemical Fertilizers. There should be plenty of accurate data for you on the World Wide Web.
Also I never claimed that the toxic waste was in the Potash. It CAN be put in the filler.
 
Angus Guy":2ae79cm3 said:
Then what are chemical fertilizers?
I do not understand your question, I thought we covered what Chemical Fertilizer are. Besides you said you were a Chemical Fertilizer Applicator. I should be asking you that question.
Brad
 
Fertilizers are your plant nutreints (N P K Mg Bo Su ect).
Herdicides are weed control agents.
Insectides are insect control agents
Fungicides are fungi control agents.
Chemicals is often a term used to discuss pesticides. Fertilizers are organic.
I am a custom applicator. I apply pesticides and fertlizer. Somtimes together and sometimes not.
 
1. Are you saying that there are no Chemicals in the regular Commercial Fertilizers? I am talking about the ganular NPK that you get from your local co-op or Fertilizer Dealer, Ammonia nitrate or even the bag fertilizer you buy at Wal-Mart.
2. No chemicals in the fillers use to help distribute the NPK.?
3. If you are making the claim that you are putting out Totally Organic Fertilizers, Do you follow the USDA Organic Program Quilification?
I know that the Co-op's and local fertilizer companies around in East Texas have chemicals in the, lets say 17-17-17 that they apply. Now I am not saying that all P and K are Chemically based. But where would they get Organic Nitrogen, and once again what about the filler?
 
Yes they are organic.
The N comes from Natural gas. Thus the name ammonium sulfate, diamonium sulfate (DAP), anhydrous ammonia. Phosphates come from mines. Naturalgas and phosphate make-up your DAP NH3 ect.
 
Ok here is another articale to help you understand the difference. I really hope this helps.
Malcom Beck wrote:
Fertilizer: Organic (Natural) versus Chemical (Inorganic)
The argument continues. The organic proponents say only organic should be used. The chemical proponents have their argument of high analysis and quicker availability.

Why don't we consult Nature and see how she has been feeding plants life since the very beginning?

Most of the fertilizers called "chemical" occur naturally in Nature. In fact, that is where man discovered them. Ammonia, ammonium, ammonium sulphate, nitrites, nitrates, potassium sulphate, calcium phosphate, urea are some of them. But seldom are these chemicals found in the pure state. In Nature, they are almost always bound up in rock or in an organic form with other elements. Or they may be found in a state of transition.

Man-made chemical fertilizers always have a high total NPK, from 20 to 60 percent or more. The total NPK for organic fertilizer blends will always be low. Fourteen percent is about as high as it gets.

The balance of the ingredients in the chemical fertilizer bag, aside from the NPK, is usually made up of inert filler or possibly a chemical that isn't needed. The balance of the ingredients in the organic fertilizer bag beyond the NPK are all necessary soil nutrients. The fact that the material is organic means it came from a once-living entity-plant, animal or a blend of both-which tells us that every ingredient there is important to life. In the best organic fertilizers, everything in the bag is needed and is in correct proportions to feed and sustain the next generation of life.

Many chemical fertilizer formulas that contain major, minor and trace elements are labeled "Complete." That is really a false statement. It takes much more than a few chemicals to maintain the healthy soil and grow healthy plants. For example, there is very little, if any, carbon in a bag of chemical fertilizer. When a plant or animal body is analyzed, one of the most abundant elements in it is carbon, in the form of energy, mainly carbohydrates.

In order for a plant to be properly fed, whether with chemical or natural fertilizer, the microbial life in the soil must first process the fertilizer into a substance and release it in the correct amounts that are perfect for a plant to absorb. In order for the microbes to perform this service, they must have energy. They are not in the presence of sunlight, nor do they have chlorophyll like higher plants, so the microbes must get their energy from decaying plant or animal matter in the soil.

A bag of organic fertilizer has all the carbon/energy to meet the needs of the soil microbes. A bag of chemical fertilizer has no energy. If organic matter is not already present in the soil, the chemicals can quickly become stressful, even toxic, to the plants. This causes plants to be susceptible to disease and insect problems.



Organic fertilizers are believed to be slower acting than the chemical fertilizers. This is true to a degree. Being a lower NPK analysis and slower acting, organic fertilizers can be used in higher volume around plants without danger of burning. However, there are some organic fertilizers that are fast acting, such as bat guano or fish meal, that can show results as quickly as the chemical fertilizers do. They are still slower to burn the plants than the chemicals and last much longer in the soil.

Unless chemical fertilizers are impregnated or coated with a microbe inhibitor and some substance to keep them from quickly dissolving, they must be used very cautiously. Especially in sandy soils, they can burn the roots of the plants and quickly leach beyond the reach of the roots. They generally end up polluting a water supply because they are too quickly dissolved and moved out of the soil. In heavy clay soils or any soil with a high organic and humus content, this is less of a problem.

Chemical fertilizers that are blended to perfectly fit a given soil and then used in the correct season and correct amounts can do nothing more than grow a plant. They do not build or sustain a healthy soil. Organic fertilizers contain the energy and the many other things that continually build soil fertility, crumb structure, increased water holding capacity, food for all the beneficial soil life, condition the soil and contribute to the hundreds of other yet-unknown things that cause a plant to grow healthy and perfect.

Only healthy and perfectly grown plants can feed and support healthy and perfect animal and human life.
 
Ok just one more then I am done,
HowLard Garrett wrote:
Organic Rather than the Synthetic Chemical Approach - Why?

A 15-5-10 synthetic fertilizer is the classic 3-1-2 ratio high-nitrogen, synthetic fertilizer – the kind that the other guys recommend. These numbers mean that the bag contains 15 percent nitrogen, 5 percent phosphorus and 10 percent potassium. The remaining 70 percent of the material in the bag is filler. That can be hydrogen, oxygen and other compound parts but can also be just about anything – sawdust, sand, dirt or even toxic industrial waste.

Now you might ask, 'Why do we need filler? They distribute the N-P-K throughout the filler or carrier so you don't burn the heck out of your turf when you apply it. Does that tell you something?

When we use organic fertilizers we're using very low amounts of buffered nutrients. Everything in the bag is useful to the plant. Our 'filler' is organic material with a variety of trace minerals. That translates to much better stimulation of biological activity in the soil.

There are all kinds of problems with synthetic, high-nitrogen fertilizers. The primary problem is that there's too much nitrogen. It creates an unbalanced situation as far as nutrients in the soil and in plants.

High levels of nitrogen and low levels of trace minerals force fast growth that results in very weak watery cell growth in plants. People see the plants are growing and flowering so they think everything is fine. But the imbalance and the watery cells bring on insects and diseases. Nature's job is to take out sick plants and to encourage the survival of the fittest.

And, the form of nitrogen is wrong. It works too fast. Plus, it's soluble. If it rains after you put it out it washes away and leaches through the soil into the water stream.

The second problem is the phosphorous source. The phosphorous in synthetic fertilizer is usually triple super phosphate 0-46-0 made by treating rock phosphate with phosphoric acid. Years ago the phosphorous source was 0-20-0 or super phosphate. It was pretty darn good even though it was created by a synthetic process. Rock phosphate was made by treatment with with sulfuric acid. It was a more balanced phosphate and did not tie up trace minerals.

Well, somebody came up with the notion to use phosphoric acid to create more phosphorous for less money. So now all the synthetic fertilizer manufacturers use triple super phosphate. Big problem – the new material is so raw and so bare that when it's put on the soil it grabs and locks onto magnesium, manganese and all sorts of other trace minerals. It ties up these nutrients making them unavailable to plants.

The third problem is potassium. The source of potassium in most synthetic fertilizers is muriate of potash or potassium chloride. Potassium chloride is bad on specific types of crops – especially fruit crops. It's also harsh on the soil. What we like as a potassium source is potassium sulfate. It's made from the salt of The Great Salt Lake.


My definition of a fertilizer is anything that improves the soil and helps to stimulate plant growth. For example, dead leaves that fall off a tree are fertilizers. As they break down they turn into organic matter or humus and feed the soil microbes. Microbes such as the beneficial fungi on the roots protect and feed the root hairs of the plants. This feeding process releases the nutrients to feed plants. That's how it works on the prairie and in the forest. We're just speeding up the process.

All the basic soil amendments meet that definition, but they are intended for building the health of the soil more than for routine fertilizing. They are more gentle and work more slowly over time. The basic soil amendments are manure-based organic compost, cornmeal, lava sand, Texas greensand, zeolite and dry molasses.

Manure based organic compost – This is the basic building block of organics. It is the material we would find on an undisturbed forest floor. It acts as a gentle fertilizer encouraging microbial action.

Cornmeal – This natural fungicide is a mild fertilizer and disease fighter that should be used until your soil gets healthy.

Lava sand – You can use as much as you want as long as you want. Remember that the most productive soils in the world – Costa Rica, Hawaii, and parts of the West Coast and the Mediterranean – places with a history of volcanic action, are almost solid lava.

Texas greensand – Mined from ancient sea beds, Texas greensand is a marine deposit that is loaded with iron –and other trace minerals. It can end up being a bit of a problem in soils with high levels of iron.

Dry molasses – This is not solid dried molasses. It's organic material like rice hull bits that have been sprayed with molasses and dried. It is a powerful carbon source that really kicks up microbial activity.

There are many quality bagged organic fertilizers to choose from. Some people alternate among them on the perfectly logical supposition that each contains a slightly different combination of nutrients and by rotating over time you provide your soil a more balanced diet.

Some brands that are widely distributed are Alliance, GreenSense, Garden-Ville, Hu-more, Bradfield, Bluebonnet, Sustane, Bioform and Texas Tee. There are also bagged sewer sludge or biosolids products of which I approve. In general, it is better to select one of these that is produced closer to home – both Denton and Houston produce a sludge product. Milorganite is an acceptable product, but be aware that it is shipped all the way from Milwaukee.

Similarly there are a lot of great choices in liquid fertilizers. I strongly recommend a regular foliar spray program. You can make your own Garrett Juice – the recipe is shown below.
Other good choices are fish and seaweed products like Bioform, Maxicrop, Medina and HastaGro, GreenSense Foliar Juice. These function as fertilizers in the soil and as well as foliar feeding when sprayed on plant foliage.

You get indirect pest control from all liquid organic products because they stimulate biological activity. And that's how we control pests the most effectivley. We try not to kill, but rather stimulate the good guys. The good guys feed on the pathogens and balance results.

Some acceptable products contain some synthetic materials. I don't have a big problem with that. You just have to understand and be honest about it. HastaGro and Bioform 8-8-8 contain small amounts of urea. Bioform 4-2-4 is a pure organic product.

Urea used at a low level increases microbial activity signifigantly. It probably works almost as well as the molasses. Those are the products I recommend when people ask, "What's an organic equivalent to Miracle Gro?" Medina HastaGro and Bioform 8-8-8 will perform just like the fast-acting soluble products like Miracle Gro, Peters 20-20-20 or one of the other liquids that is not acceptable in an organic program
 
norriscathy, thank you for pointing out my mistake. i had over looked it. i was trying to say that lime is an acid neutralizer like soda or potash.
Ranchcop you can and use what ever you want thats your right. i perfure to not use chicken litter. i think it is a great idea if it is processed correctly. after all the stuff needs to go somewhere, why not reuse it? my problem is that to keep up with supply and demand and health codes the chicken litter is leaving the house floor straight to the field. "I" feel this raises health issues. issues to animals and humans. animal fecas is a great fertilizer when properly composed but so is animal remains ,leaves,grass clipping,sawdust,and the list can go on, really anything organic. but it has to be composted. i feel that the heating process of composting kills diseases and other bacteria that is in the organic material. you can quote all the studies you want and will not change my mind. i am sorry but somethings i am stubburn about. but after all you said you will still have to use somthing to keep the ph up, cause as nitrogen is used and p and k are used ph levels drop.
around here in alabama for grazing grasses one can almost always get away with liming 1\2 to 1ton per acre every 3 years and spread 60lbs of ammonia nitrate per acre and apply the % of p &k as needed twice a year. if your cutting hay you might need to step up to 100lbs of ammonia nitrate per acre and of the corse the minarial you need. i really dont think that 100lbs an acre is to alarming myself.
as far as herbicides as i said i use gly-4{generic roundup} for hand spraying it suggest 1-3ozs to a gallion of water. i believe that gallion treats something like 300sq ft. i dont see the need to throw up the flags of alarm there either.
now to pesticides. most that hastent been treated are destroyed once rained on. i know you have emulisons and what not but also mosdt of them are licence only. so really all that can happen is an animal or human come into dangerious contact with the poison or not using the poison as it is labeled and the pest come immune to it.
 
Lazy M,
I agree with you on composting, and here at Watson Ranch the compost that goes into our Aerobic Compost Tea is not only properly composted but then feed to Earth Worms for a Huge boost in just about every nutrient the plant needs. What I was saying, because of the fact that many times that uncomposted chicken litter is used, it is better to spray Effective Micro Organisms on top of them to decompose them faster and fight any bad bacteria that is in the uncomposted litter. That goes for any organic matter applied to a field that is not properly composted.
I would like to correct you on one thing, I do not carry Emulsions. I carry Hydrolized fish, there is a big difference. When talking about Fish Emulsions, the way it is manufacture is, all the marketable products in the fish are taken out, meat, bone/calcium, oil ect. Then the remains are cooked up and sold as Fish Emulsions fertilizer, it is smelly and not very effective.
Hydorlized fish, is a cold process using the whole fish with all the goodies still there. It is an excellent fertilizer product that has many benefits to the soil and the livestock. It is not nearly as smelly.
The Garlic product that I use to help control leaf eating insects, when applied with the Fish and Seaweed product, becomes systemic in the plant and will not wash off. I have even noticed that when the garlic is applied for two years in a row, in a hay pasture, that the third year there is enough left in the grass to carry me thru the third year. I have not been brave enough to chance it into the fourth year, I just re apply, shoot it is only $3.00 per acre.
Brad
 
Top