Quantcast

Jump to content




Sponsors

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Recent Topics


Photo

Aggrand liquid fertilizer?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#21 Production Acres

Production Acres

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:47 AM

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.

#22 msparks

msparks

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 08:56 AM

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?

Edited by msparks, 05 February 2009 - 09:09 AM.


#23 Production Acres

Production Acres

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 03:43 PM

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.

#24 msparks

msparks

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 05 February 2009 - 05:07 PM

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

#25 Production Acres

Production Acres

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 06 February 2009 - 07:41 AM

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.

#26 msparks

msparks

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:16 PM

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...ges/12 Ways.pdf

#27 Farmerboy

Farmerboy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 17 February 2009 - 10:05 PM

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!

#28 cozyacres

cozyacres

    Grass Farmer

  • Members
  • 55 posts
  • LocationNorth Central Wisconsin

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:01 PM

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.

#29 urednecku

urednecku

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationCentral Florida

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:59 PM

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!!

#30 vhaby

vhaby

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 471 posts
  • LocationNE of Tyler, TX

Posted 13 September 2012 - 12:12 AM

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.
  • mlappin, Nitram and Bob M like this

#31 swmnhay

swmnhay

    Hay Master and Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,597 posts
  • LocationReading,Mn

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:03 AM

WHEN SOMEONE OFFERED HIS ACRES TO COMPARE THE GUY DISAPEERED.IMAGINE THAT!!! :rolleyes:
  • mlappin likes this

#32 cozyacres

cozyacres

    Grass Farmer

  • Members
  • 55 posts
  • LocationNorth Central Wisconsin

Posted 13 September 2012 - 10:19 PM

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


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!

#33 Mike120

Mike120

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 1,545 posts
  • LocationHockley, TX

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:34 AM

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.
  • cozyacres, vhaby and terraceridge like this

#34 vhaby

vhaby

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 471 posts
  • LocationNE of Tyler, TX

Posted 14 September 2012 - 09:44 AM

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.
  • Mike120, cozyacres and terraceridge like this

#35 hayray

hayray

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 451 posts
  • LocationSoutheast (Brighton), Michigan

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:57 AM

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.

#36 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,308 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:12 AM

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.....

#37 Mike120

Mike120

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 1,545 posts
  • LocationHockley, TX

Posted 16 September 2012 - 09:14 AM

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.

#38 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,308 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:19 PM

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.

#39 Aurora_Ranch

Aurora_Ranch

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • LocationQuitman, Texas

Posted 25 September 2012 - 09:08 PM

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.

#40 vhaby

vhaby

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 471 posts
  • LocationNE of Tyler, TX

Posted 27 September 2012 - 12:42 AM

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.
  • swmnhay, hay wilson in TX, Mike120 and 6 others like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users