|
Coldwater, Michigan | Pat,
I've just been doing a lot of web research on differnt Starter Fertilizer trials throughout the US and Canada mostly. I believe it is Ruetgers(New Jersey), or it was Penn State; stated that in dry years their liquid trials tend to out due the dry trials. Of course they went into the H2O in liquid wasn't that much when you look at total H20 in an Acre of soil, but that in spite of that the liquid still did better in dry years. Other than that most researchers flatly state " a pound of p is a pound of p no matter how you pee it", otherwise they don't feel as though there is a difference in performance between a dry nutrient and a liquid one, they are the same.
When I ran the Sohigro, and later the Terra retail outlets, a customer would come in to ask about liquid or dry. As a fertilizer manager, I would explain liquids are more convenient, but are more expensive per unit of plant food. Dry's are not as convenient, they rust your equipment, but they are cheaper per unit of plant food.
In the long run most have chosen the liquids because they are more convenient, they are easier. Easier handling, and convenience are worth something. Not rusting out your planter boxes, frame, truck bed, frame of truck , or gravity wagon, auger, are worth something in dollars and cents, besides the peace of mind from handling, etc.
One result I did not expect when I started my Starter Fertilizer trials 15 years ago was to see any difference in dry vs liquid. The liquid of choice was usually some version of 10-34-0, or variations of it with sulfur, 28%, etc. The dry choices were usually 18-46-0, or some blended DAP with potash, maybe some sulfur, etc. Most often 15 gallons of 10-34-0 (roughly 16-52-0) 2"x 2" vs 100# of 18-46-0 (18-46-0) 2" x 2" . I tried to keep the nitrogen rates as near the same as was easily posibble. In this case it brought the total nutrient content close to being the same, in the same placement.
When I was doing the trials for NAS Solutions in Michigan. I made 89 comparisons within the plots that were strickly 10-34-0 at 15 gallons/acre and some form of dry starter (at average of 155#/ acre). Sometimes the dry treatments ran as high as 225#/acre depending on the analysis. Anyway, with 89 replications, or plots, dry vs liquid, the 10-34-0 averaged - 140.7 BPA, the dry treatment averaged 132.6 BPA. Understand these were Standard 2" x 2" placement. These plots were usually replicated 3-4 times at each location/year. The data isn't perfect, but it is reasonably accurate.
If someone was going to ask me today, I would give all of the above mentioned goodies, and then I would talk probable yield increase. It should be noted: the yield increase was not as good when 10-34-0 was placed with the seed at 5 gallons/ acre. And there were treatments that were considerably better in that time frame. As much as $9.73/acre better than the 10-34-0 @ 15 gallons 2" x 2".
I would go for the liquid, most people will be glad they did. When I go to Indiana with my data comparing dry starters, I usually get told "Nobody uses them anymore".
| |
|
liquid fertilizer vs dry
