Liquid fertilizer how can it be better?

[1grnlwn]

Ok I know the applicators advantages for using liquid applications. But does anyone really think that liquid fertilizers are better for the turf? I offer both but only use liquid for weed and feed applications. When I do weed and feed I use 50% slow release liquid at a rate of about 1/5 lb N per K. Any more and I would not be cost effective. Liq slow is really expensive. Most people around here use urea and tell the customer oh yea its slow release( insert largest corp here) . Does foliar applied quick release even get to the roots? I am trying to get my towns sports fields and the super is convinced that that liquid stuff is the way to go. Am I going to have to wait till they kill the turf before I get my shot? How many use slow liquids and at what rate? How many use fast release and at what rate? My guess is no matter what I tell this guy I am not going to change his mind. I would like to learn more about liguid though.

Mark

[1grnlwn]

Ok. So everybody is using urea in their liquid and don't want to talk about it. Shamefull.

[OBRYANMAINT]

I am definately not an expert.....but as i would understand it you cannot be very cost effective at all with fert and liquid in a residental setting.........now it may be a bit different on a golf course where you have more control of the turf via irrigation, topdressing, etc

[mowing king]

the benfit of liquids over gran is folier absorbtion and liquid goes deeper into the ground. The gran sits and waits for water,while the liquid gets into the leaf of the plant and then gets wash in with water. liquid fert will produce a deeper root system because the food goes into the soil and does not sit ontop of the soil like granular. The sources for slow release come from meth-urea or bluechip. Urea works fine on 6 week cycles with iron.

[lawnstudent]

lawnking says:

"liquid fert will produce a deeper root system because the food goes into the soil and does not sit ontop of the soil like granular."


How does liquid fert produce deeper roots? Granular must be broken down by weather, time and microbes in the top layer of soil. At that point granular fert is in solution like liquid fert and available for root uptake. The grass will not know the difference in the source of nutrients.

[1grnlwn]

In thick turf a liquid fert run will not reach the soil anyway. It would take a rain or irrigation to wash the residual fert off of the leaves to the soil. Or a lawn cutting.

Mark

[mowing king]

how does liquid fert get deeper into the soil? Try this test. Get two thick sponges. Place some granular fert on the sponge and then put some liquid fert with dye in it on the other sponge. then pour equal amounts of water on each. you will see the liquid fert go down into the sponge and the granular fert just sit there.

Grass and soil is like the sponge. Try it and you will see. We have our own test plots and can prove this. Or you can do your own test. you need to pull core and measure the weight and length of the roots.

they may tell you all nutrients are the same but how they move into the rootrones are different. Do your own test. Please don't belive me,do your testing first. But if it didn't work I would not have 2 spray trucks.

[lawnstudent]

Mowing King,

I mean no disrespect, but I do not understand. Your example with a sponge sounds like a slight of hand trick. Of coarse a liquid fert with dye will be absorbed into a sponge and granules of fert will just sit on the surface. Now, if you where to sprinkle water on the granules, wouldn't the nutrients in those granules dissolve and be absorbed by the sponge just as deeply as the the granular fert? I do agree that one advantage of liquid fert is foliar absorption. But what about the negative aspect of liquid fert leaching through the root zone before the grass root has a chance to absorb it?

[1grnlwn]

mowing king

Do you use slow release N or urea?

[tremor]

Regardless of source, all nitrogen, once it becomes soluble does move down into the soil profile. N can move down as much as 11 inches or so depending upon soil type & precipitation rates.
Whether a granular or a liquid, slow release or not. There is absolutely no difference what so ever.
If a soluble dye were incorporated into a prill of urea (or a slow release) water would move the N & the dye just like the liquid experiment. This assumes that the dye has the same solubility as the Nitrogen source. This is unlikely, but could be duplicated if the fertilizer industry didn't allready know.
The real question here seems to focus on nitrogen solubility & foliar absorption.
Foliar feeding of soluble N is a bit of a myth. Peters Professional product management has done a study of their own soluble ferts & found that foliar absorption is very minimal. Precipitation will move the applied N into the soil (if it isn't mowed off or gassed off at hi temps) where it will assume it's ultimate fate. Just like a granular application. They don't talk too much about it because so many people think there are advantages to foliar N. Hey, any N that finds the plant at proper rates will benefit the plant so who cares how much is foliar & how much is root? It's a good thing that the N falls off too. The fate of N sitting on a leaf would be pretty poor were it never moved off & foliar damage could also occurr.
Mark, we manufacture blends & sell liquid Fertilizers from all-chem to 100% N-Sure (triazone urea) & I sympathize with you. We even supply (insert big co here), & we can & do make any liquid possible for any use as long as the purchaser meets some simple minmum delivery expectations. Most applicators do balk at the prices of true liquid slow N in solution. Examples are Coron & N-Sure but there's another one I can't remember right now. People get confused by the number of copy righted trade names, but there are only 3 manufacturers of raw liquid slow N's in a true solution. There are plenty of liquid blenders. We all find the liquid slow raws are more costly than granular.
Cheaper is FLUF (flowable liquid urea formaldehyde) but it settles out real bad, still isnt cheap, and is way too insoluble. By the time all the N has become available, most of us will have retired or died. Any economic savings on cost goes right out the window when we refactor the rate increase to adjust for insolubility.
I wouldn't sell the trizone N-Sure if it didn't work so well. N-Sure is made by Tersenderlo-Kerley. As I said before, there are others but none are as good. When all three are tested using the same methods, N-Sure is the most slow at 73%ASRN (Actual Slow Release Nitrogen). Using the same methods, the other 2 come in around 60-68%. The small increase in cost is made up for by the fact that we (the blender) can use a little less to give you (the applicator) the same amount of slowN. Or we can use the same amount & deliver more controlled release N.
How the various N sources are converted to a soluble state are going to have to wait for another day since I'm off to the CGK conference in Hartford. Maybe I'll see some of you there.

Hope this helps.
Steve

[1grnlwn]

Steve, Great post! So basically, its not an issue of liquid vs. granular. But an issue of fast release vs. slow release. The slow release option being the best situation for turfgrass. I am mystified about foliar absorption, and maybe its the fast release aspects of liquid that customers marvel over. I use Coron myself. I find that I can only afford about 1/5 lb N /1000. Other apps supply plenty of N so I guess its ok. Thanks for adding to a learning post (bit tired of "saw another gopher today" eg) once spring hits won't be much time to think.

Mark

[lawnstudent]

Great post Steve! Here is another question. Nitrogen is very volitile. Will N, in liquid form, volitize more readily than in granular form?

[mowing king]

hey,man iam not here to argue.I just put up some reasons why liquid is better then granular fert.

We use both granular and liquid.Depending on the round. The liquid fert we use is 25% slow. And the granular fert we use will vary, but we like anything with 50% slow. I don't really need to be educated about fertilizer by people who don,t even treat lawns for a living and either do you. Don't belive everything these salesmen tell you or these bowtie professor, who never delt with customers asking why the lawn is not real Green. I'll say it again. Do your own test plots, and make up your own mind.

[Ric]

Mowing king

Lets talk cost of material vs cost of labor.

1. Fact--- Granular apply per elements applied per thousands Square Feet. Fast release slow release does not matter. Granular is much more cost effective than liquid.

2.Fact--- Granular insecticide or fungusicide is more expensive than liquid.

3.Labor time to apply granular depending on the equipment can be more time or a lot less time than applying liquid.

4. Fact--- cost of pesticide granular out weight cost of applying liquid fertilizer.

5. Fact--- Labor of making one type of application instead of two, mean using liquid fertilizer and pesticide in one cocktail is the most cost effective way to apply both.

6. Therefore--- Those who do liquid application try to justify that there method is the best and only way.

7. Opinion---Granular slow release fertilizer at regular intervals is the best method of maintaining high quality turf, along with IPM application of liquid pesticides.

8. Fact---Turf can only foliar up take 1/10 lb of N per 1,000 sq ft in 24 hrs. Therefore liquid must soak through to the soil and be taken up by roots only in small amounts each day. Depending on the soil infiltration liquid fertilizer will leach out before it is take up by the plant.

9. Fact--- Granular fertilizer whether fast or slow release must have water to dissolve into liquid form for it to be taken up by the plant. This dissolving takes more time than the plant up take time therefore more fertilizer is used by the plant. Less fertilizer is leached from the soil.

10. Fact--- Liquid fertilizer gives faster response but shorter residual. regardless of slow release form

11. Fact--- Granular fertilizer gives slower response but greater residual.

12 Conclusion--- Same as opinion # 7

ps. Here in the bug capital of America I make my living from fert and squirt. Please don't ask if I practice what preach.

[tremor]

Hi Mow King,
I'm offering this only as information. I'm not here to argue either.

I treated all types of turf commercially for 10 years before switching to the other side of the counter. I get on the grass with clients almost every day. From dusty sand lots at NYC PS schools to the most recognizable Professional Athletic Turf in the world & all the sprawling estates & starter homes in between. I'm doing a walk through at the United Nations today at 9:30 AM then up to Westchester to check on some ailing residential trees. I won't be wearing a tie today either.
Tools may change, but grass & client expectations haven't.
Yeah, I'm in sales. So are you. If we're going to be successful in this field, then we'd all better be good salespeople. Order takers don't make it in our industry. To be good, we need to know & share facts.

I'll address nitrogen volatility when time allows.

Ric,
Virtually all liquid fertilizers are made from granular components before they get cooked down in a water carrier.
I'll bet that in your area, no one is making a quality slow release liquid or no one is using it. So it may not be possible to do a side by side. Straight urea based liquids are 100% EXACTLY the same as 100% straight urea based granules. FAST.

If two ferts are compared side by side. One liquid one granular. And both contain the exact same quantity & type of slow release (can be done), then the turf will perform the same way if all else is equal. The issue is that cost makes nearly all users & blenders compromise the quantities/types of slow N. So you get what we found here today. We cannot surmise that liquids don't last as long unless we perform an actual field comparison.
I can obtain & ship a small quanitiy of 18-3-6 50% ASRN from N-Sure if anyone wants to try. We need a plot somehere, witnesses to the plots performance, & a way for more than one of us to check. I'm in southern CT if anyone wants to try. Gotta admit, it would be an interesting & informative use of this forum. Especially if it ever rains again.
Any takers?

Steve

[Ric]

Steve

Yes your right no one in my area uses slow release liquid fert because of our sand. Nothing stay around long enough to be slow release.
There for granulars are the better choice in sandy soil

[lawnstudent]

Steve,

fascinating information about liquid ferts! You stated: "Virtually all liquid fertilizers are made from granular components before they get cooked down in a water carrier." What I don't understand is that a lot of slow release granular fert is just urea with a coating. These slow release prills require water, weathering or microbe activity to break down their coatings to release the urea. If this is what you are cooking down, how do you get slow release N in liquid form. The only way I see that happening is if the liquid fert is someother type of N source (organic?) that also needs microbe activity to transform it into solution for the grass root. If this is true, can liquid fert have the period of slow, gradual release as a coated urea prill?

Jim

P.S. I'd be more than happy to provide you with a test site but I don't think NE Illinois meets your location requirements.

[1grnlwn]

It could be like methelurea (spelling wrong) which is not a coated product but a homogenous granular slow release, or IBDU which I believe is also homogenous. And yes I think healthy disagreements are a good way for everyone to learn.

Mark

[tremor]

Mark's on to it. Urea can be made slow by coating the exterior of the urea prill or by reacting or preserving the compound to make it more resistant to water solubility. Formaldehyde has been the preservative of choice for a long time. At least 60 years. Indeed, just after the introduction of Bakelite, scientists stumbled upon urea formaldeyde resins that could be used to manufacture such items as telephone cases, radio cabinets, etc. I collect old radios & have a few with UF cabinets. Believe me, the nitrogen in those cabinets will never benefit a single plant even if I plant flowers in them. The nitrogen is too thoroughly "fixxed" to become avaialable. Eventually, petroleum based plastics came along, lessened the weight, & the rest is history.
While making UF resins for consumer retail goods, some scientist must have discovered that the reaction could be controlled. Knowing that the urea contained 46% nitrogen must have proved tempting to Ag Chem scientists. Over the years the processes have been refined & modified in an attempt to produce the "perfect realease patern".

The University of Florida has one of the most complete, yet realistically simplified summaries I've seen. I lifted the following from them.
____________________

Urea is a white crystalline solid, generally marketed in prill form, containing
45-46% N. It has good physical properties and is not as hygroscopic as ammonium nitrate. It produces
1.8 pounds of acidity per pound of N and has a salt index of 1.62; thus it can be applied to turfgrass with little threat of burn when applied at recommended rates. If left on the soil surface, significant quantities of N may be lost by volatilization. Therefore, urea should always be watered in with the proper amount of water. Urea is a non-ionic compound when placed into solution and will leach rapidly through the soil profile if excess water is applied. Remember that one inch of water will effectively wet the top ten inches of a Florida sand soil profile. Urea is highly soluble and one of the materials of choice in N solution fertilizers. Generally speaking urea does not produce as good a turfgrass response as does ammonium sulfate or ammonium nitrate, but because of its ease of application in solution form, its high solubility, its low burn potential and low cost per pound of N, it is a popular soluble N source, particularly by lawn care maintenance personnel.


Ureaformaldehyde Reaction Products, also known as Nitroform , Ureaform, UF, Methylene Urea, Blue Chip, Nutralene or Methex, represent one of the oldest controlled-release nitrogen technologies, having been first produced in 1936 and commercialized in 1955.

Ureaform is the oldest class of UF reaction products. Ureaform is sparingly soluble. It contains at least
35% total nitrogen with at least 60% of the total nitrogen as cold water-insoluble nitrogen (CWIN). Further, it must have an Activity Index (AI), i.e., the percent of CWIN that is soluble in hot (100°C) water, of not less than 40%. Ureaform is composed largely of longer-chained UF polymers, primarily tetramethylene pentaurea (TMPU) and longer.
Unreacted urea nitrogen content is usually less than
15% of the total nitrogen. This product is commonly marketed under the following names: Nitroform , UF, Blue Chip, Powder Blue or Methex.


Methylene Ureas are a class of sparingly soluble products which evolved during the
1960s and 1970s.
These products contain predominantly intermediate chain-length polymers, primarily trimethylene tetraurea (TMTU) and tetramethylene pentaurea (TMPU). The total nitrogen content of these polymers is 39 to 40%, with between 25 and 60% of the nitrogen present as CWIN. The unreacted urea content generally is in the range of 15 to 30% of the total nitrogen. This product is typically marketed under the trade name Nutralene.


UF solutions are clear water solutions. They contain only very low molecular-weight, water soluble UF reaction products plus unreacted urea. Various combinations of the UF solutions are produced. They contain a maximum of 55% unreacted urea with the remainder as one or more of methylolureas, methylolurea ethers, MDU, DMTU, or triazone. One of the commercial names under which this product is currently marketed as CoRon .
________________________

If you would like to visit the actual site where I stole this information from, here it is:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/scripts/BODY_SS318.html

Enjoy,
Steve

[1grnlwn]

Tremor, boy thats a mouthfull. Is coron a good slow release product? I guess I should price out Nutrulene just to compair. I usually by by the 55 gal drum.
Mark

[Ric]

Tremor

One of you better novels But I got to say-----------I told you so.

About a month or so ago I jumped on you real heavy about not knowing what you were talking about when it comes to Florida soil and insects. After reading the Ifas website in your above post I am just shallow enough to say I told you so. It confirms what I said then. Glad to see you are paying attention to our Florida turf and surf.

[fshrdan]

Tremor,

This FLUF you spoke of, is it essentially a liquid Nitroform? I'm planning to try out a Nitroform fert instead of SCU this year. And you say it is way too insoluble. Can microbial activity get this N into the soil solution? I wouldn't expect too much of that in sandy soils, but we've got mostly clayey soils in GA, and I would think that the microbes would break down this fert pretty well. What are your thoughts?

[tremor]

FLUF is a liquid form of UF. I don't know who makes or markets it today. It is prone to settling, so has fallen out of favor around here. I sometimes sell straight 38-0-0 Powder Blue & the guys blend it as needed into a tank mix. Not many do this anymore with the advent of N-Sure & Coron.

UF in general is kind of odd to classify due to it's release mechanisms & when to expect that release. Since it releases via microbes, some soils behave differently than others. Where microbes are active, UF can be quick. So soils in good till, well aerated, & those containing ample organic matter will exhibit good UF response on the insoluble side. Soils under drought, lacking organic matter, or clay soils that compact readily will fail to utilize UF effectively under all but the best cultural practices.(ie work the soil)

UF is 12% free urea or soluble N
UF is 42% hot water insoluble N (HWIN)

That leaves only 46% desirable controlled release N

We all know what the free urea does. Turf managers don't apply more than 1lb of N since even at 1lb/N, clippings yield will double or triple in the 2-3 weeks following application. This leaves us with just shy of .5lbs/N to release in the 2-10 years following treatment. It takes many years for this sort of savings plan to realize any agronomic benefit.

So the HWIN may take 2-10 years to become available to plants depending on the soils. Back when Golf Superintendents & LCO's could expect to manage the same turf for a 15 year career, UF made long term sense, since in the last 5-8 years, the turf manager would save money on the Nitrogen side of his fertilizer budget. In the first 7-10 years, he'd literally be bankrolling nitrogen for use in the twilight of his career.
Those days are pretty much gone. Most turf managers won't be with one course or lawn customer long enough to justify wasting his employers budget on a 1500 per ton (minimum) nitrogen source. This equates to slightly more than $1.00 per unit of Nitrogen, of which less than half will be utilized by turf for it's intended slow release aspect in the first 2-3 years.

Flowable forms of UF are also very abrasive & will cause an incalculable (for this exercise) expense in long term wear of pump & spray-system components.

True liquid solutions like N-Sure (triazone based) & Coron (MU40 based) are less likely to contain the undesirable HWIN. They also aren't front loaded with any more free urea. Since the cost per ton per unit of N is about 50% more, many turf managers will draw the incorrect conclusion that both are less than good value. Yet when we consider the much more efficient utilization of N, either one is cheaper in actual practice. Combine the economy of purchase with the economy of usage & the solutions begin to look pretty good. Solutions don't require agitation in storage. Solutions don't settle out like UF when the sprayer is parked. UF does, so it requires mechanical sprayer agitation & may still clog pick up tubes. Solutions don't abrade equipment either. They also take less time to measure & fill.
Any material cost savings of UF will be lost to additional equipment expense. Any longterm agronomic Nitrogen benefit will probably be realized by a different turf manager than the one who applies UF.
Conclusion: UF costs about $1.00 per .46 units of controlled N. Not a very good value. With potential significant peripheral expenses.

[fshrdan]

Termor, thanks for the very thorough answer. It's always a pleasure reading your posts. Daniel

[fertit]

Old rule of thumg- use liquid when spraying for weeds, but rely on granular slow-release to get the job done over the long haul.