ecmn | paul the original - 2/4/2026 15:28
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
Thank you for the wonderful response.
Before anything else, I want to clarify, anyone trying to argue with my original post, isn't arguing with me. They're arguing with soil science, biology and agronomy I'm just describing the mechanism
The "apply and get some carry over". The system that makes the left over fertilizer available in the future is the same system that moves nutrients from the geological pool to the available pool.
Your second point. We both have been taught that if you take a pound out you have to replace a pound. A sales agronomist has never explained the two pools. The geological pool that is the massive reserve and the available pool that you and I live in from year to year.
God created this perfect world with intelligent design but screwed up on the soil? I don't believe that . The reason no one can answer my question of show the data of the size of the geological pool and depletion rate, them numbers don't exist. The pool is literally infinite in human time scale.
A tree growing out of a rock is the perfect example. The rock is the geological pool. How the plant lives is the available pool and it happens because of biology.
Your third point. Thanks for reminding me of how good guys with prairie soils can have it ! I think you just described farming,
And it's a fantastic example of my previous statement about the two pools. Good years biology does a great job of mineralizing from big pool to available pool, no need for fertilizer soil test stays good. Cold year. Biology struggles, mineralization slows down crop can suffer, soil test can show depletion.
All liquid, all dry or any combination of the two, really doesn't matter when it comes to if your mining the soil or not. Your management determines that not the form or cost of fertilizer
Economics. We don't know what we don't measure. Like I said in the post, when you start measuring you get a better picture of what you really need vs think we need..how do we know what is really happening if we aren't testing? When you start more testing maybe it's not a money saver, but a reallocation.
Everybody is in a different context. Level of soil function, man power, time, tools available, products available, weather patterns...
For me to say I can make two extra trips in season works for me. The next guy might think that's crazy.
For direct nutrient dollars. Last year the "jug" was $10 and it replaced $28 of dry potassium chloride.
Also by applying at points of influence it has moved my yield up.
Looking at stalk strength, root development, ear development, yield, tissue tests, everything I can reasonably measure as a farmer it's a win win.
And yes. There are a lot of bad sales agronomist out there. It is frustrating for the good ones.
Edited by easymoney 2/4/2026 21:20
|
How a 12 lb jug of fertilizer can actually replace 100 lb
