Register free!
Search
 
     

Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-05-2014, 11:51 AM
Toro 44's Avatar
Toro 44 Toro 44 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bucks County PA
Posts: 155
Yes i use Synatek. They carry mainly a 20-0-3 stabilized urea with MOP. It is a decent product for what it is. I'm trying to go a little more custom than that though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalderfer63 View Post
Have you tried Synatek out of Souderton.They have some good liquid fert options.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-05-2014, 11:58 AM
Toro 44's Avatar
Toro 44 Toro 44 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bucks County PA
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by greendoctor View Post
In acidic clay, you want calcium nitrate as your N source and potassium nitrate for the K. No, it will not defloculate the soil provided you pay attention to the calcium levels. Because I often need to use calcium nitrate to correct magnesium excesses, sodium excesses, and acidic soil, potassium sulfate is no good for me. It forms concrete if mixed with calcium nitrate. I can also tell you that a good rule is no more than 1 lb of N per 10 gallons of solution. Especially in dry, non irrigated lawns. That rule is broken with me because I am spraying on lawns that were watered that morning and I am going to short cycle the system after application.
Thank you for the reply. Especially for the tip on avoiding making concrete in my tank.

I don't think I'll do more than half a pound of n and k generally. I hear you on the volume. It's not entirely practical for me. But then neither is burning lawns. I will take this all into account though.

I love the idea of calcium nitrate. Having an n source that doesn't acidify soil is appealing.

With applying calcium nitrate, doesn't calcium influence magnesium usage? What do you use to compensate magnesium and avoid deficiency?
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-05-2014, 10:16 PM
RigglePLC's Avatar
RigglePLC RigglePLC is online now
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 9,261
I was a user of urea and MOP. I applied at 2.6 gallons of solution per thousand. I think you would be applying too much potash. I prefer a ratio of about 7 parts nitrogen to one potash. Remember potash is soluble, slow-release potash is rare. You need potassium every few weeks. More if soil is sandy, low in organic matter, or if rain and sprinkling are heavy.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-06-2014, 07:38 AM
Toro 44's Avatar
Toro 44 Toro 44 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bucks County PA
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RigglePLC View Post
I was a user of urea and MOP. I applied at 2.6 gallons of solution per thousand. I think you would be applying too much potash. I prefer a ratio of about 7 parts nitrogen to one potash. Remember potash is soluble, slow-release potash is rare. You need potassium every few weeks. More if soil is sandy, low in organic matter, or if rain and sprinkling are heavy.
When you did 2.6 g/m were you doing your 50 pounds of urea to 80 gallons of water? Can't remember what you wrote before.

Also, i'm placing a lot of emphasis on k because my soil tests on new lawns come back low on k. I usually like a 2:1 ratio.

I have access to a premade 20-0-3, but i didn't feel that was enough k.

Maybe i should reconsider. Any thoughts on why i could get by with less k?

Thank you for the responses everyone!
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-06-2014, 08:05 AM
Toro 44's Avatar
Toro 44 Toro 44 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bucks County PA
Posts: 155
Double post again. Apologies
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-06-2014, 11:09 AM
RigglePLC's Avatar
RigglePLC RigglePLC is online now
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 9,261
Toro44,
yes, 50 pounds urea contains 23 lbs nitrogen. I dissolved that in each 80 gallons of water. That equals about .77 lbs nitrogen per thousand when spraying fert solution at 2.6 gallons per thousand. I also added potassium chloride (MOP) at a much lower rate. Remember potassium has no greening power at all; it contributes to plant health and better growth in a general way.

Most soil tests recommendations are designed to help corn farmers produce the maximum number of bushels per acre. I suspect the recommendations would be exactly the same if you told the soil test lab you were growing corn or if you said you were growing turfgrass.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-06-2014, 11:36 AM
Skipster Skipster is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by RigglePLC View Post
Most soil tests recommendations are designed to help corn farmers produce the maximum number of bushels per acre. I suspect the recommendations would be exactly the same if you told the soil test lab you were growing corn or if you said you were growing turfgrass.
For most states that is incorrect. But, try it and see what happens. Maybe your suspicion will be confirmed, or maybe it won't.

I will concede that some turf soil test recommendations are based on old data or maybe even formulated hypotheses, instead of correlation-calibration studies. But, I think you'll find that they differ from ag recs.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-06-2014, 01:10 PM
turfmd101 turfmd101 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: orlando fl
Posts: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
For most states that is incorrect. But, try it and see what happens. Maybe your suspicion will be confirmed, or maybe it won't.

I will concede that some turf soil test recommendations are based on old data or maybe even formulated hypotheses, instead of correlation-calibration studies. But, I think you'll find that they differ from ag recs.
Skip, I have a belief that even soil samples which provide nutritional availability for turfgrass consumption do not provide the right information. I believe a word you used in another post which I use most often is "GENETICS".
Soils have their own profiles for nutrient availability but plant genetics play a bigger role. Most landscape turfgrass is genetically engineered by taking different native grasses and crossbreading varieties with certain genetic traits. The traits used are the ones which would best suit the environmental conditions in which they will be planted to live. Creating a turfgrass not native to earth but engineered by "man". This is more to me where GENETICS come into play. I believe the primary issues that are not addressed are the fact that each landscape with the same cultivar do not use clones of one cultivar ( same genetics but slightly different DNA). Being that DNA plays more into individual plant nutrient requirements because cloning is not the process of each variety. If it was. Nutritional needs would be the same for each individual variety. I also believe that since these cultivars are man made and not BORN on earth that all varieties cultivated gene mutate over time and become somewhat different than the original cultivar because of individual DNA since there not all clones of the original cultivar.

Like humans. We are all humans but each with individual DNA structures. Since humans are not clones of each other we all experience different effects and have different nutritional needs for survival.

For instance. My wife is always low in potassium. Me no. We have the same diet and eat together. If we were clones we would have the same deficiency nutrition wise but because we are not, our individual DNA dictates our nutritional needs. Not that we are both genetically human. I believe this is why applicators have different results with the same products on the same cultivar. DNA.

Your thoughts.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-06-2014, 01:20 PM
Skipster Skipster is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 680
I donít want to hijack this thread, so Iíll keep it simple. The bottom line is to remember that soil tests are index reports that help us make management decisions. They are not a measure of plant available nutrients nor are their recommendations (under the best of circumstances) absolute and unchangeable. When properly understood, soil nutrients analyses can be useful management tools.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-06-2014, 04:39 PM
americanlawn's Avatar
americanlawn americanlawn is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: midwest
Posts: 5,570
Skipster -- good point. Wondering how much potassium is lacking in Pennsylvania soils. Wondering if maybe enough potassium already exists. Tied up/available? Also wondering the need to spray 5 gallons?? Is liquid the best option? Would a coated granular product offer advantages? Might sulfur or micronutrients be beneficial? How about core aerification? Organic matter?

Who sprays 5 gallons per 1000 square feet???
__________________
Proud subscriber of TURF Magazine. (thanks Ron)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:08 PM.

Page generated in 0.08829 seconds with 9 queries