|
southern MN | The 100# offers me 25# this year and maybe 10-15# in each of the next 2 years. And maybe 4-5# for several years after that.
Mineralization is removing nutrients from my soil. It’s great, but it’s always a negative on the soil. It often would be recycling some of the 100# of fert that was applied 3-10 years ago…. Mineralization happens on its own, the 12# jug will make it happen faster in ideal conditions, but that means you are just removing stockpiles from your soil faster.
Now, I think a blending of both is the future. I don’t see how the 12# jug can replace the 100# of fertility. Over a lifetime on typical farm soils.
My low ground is the bottoms of old glacial lakes. Wonderful deep black high organic ground. In a dry warm spring, that dirt mineralizes enough to raise 150-180 bu corn with no added fert. On the other hand in a cold wet spring, pretty much no useful mineralization happens to help the crop. And this mimics the 12# jug - sometimes it’s the best bang for the Buck by far. And sometimes it’s a total waste of money, poor crop because of it.
So, the 12# jug can be part of a total fertilizing system. But if you aren’t doing at least 50# of the real stuff along the way, you are going backwards arent you?
Now if you are doing both you need the economics to work. What is the cost of that 12# jug if it’s only effective half the years? If the 50-100# of fertilizer isn’t effective this year, a lot of it will help me in future years. So its cost can be deprecated over time. Same with manure.
But that 12# jug, that needs to pay off this season. If it doesn’t, it’s lost money.
We need to be careful to do the math properly on this. Those 12# jugs need to be at the right price point.
Unfortunately salesmen for these types of products tried to overstate their value, and often in a pyramid sales scheme, so many are wary of similar products, even if they are much better than they used to be.
Paul | |
|
How a 12 lb jug of fertilizer can actually replace 100 lb
