From

Location

Message

Date Posted

San Diego, Ca.

This might be a dumb question for some of you out there but I have been wondering about this for a while.
I see all the different fertilizers out there with names like ammonium sulfate, ammonium phosphate, muriate of potash and iron chelate.
What is sulfate, phosphate, muriate and chelate? How are they different for one another and what are the purposes of each type?
I sure would like to understand this better.

3/7/2004 10:50:00 PM

San Diego, Ca.

LOL, just noticed I really messed up on the subject heading!
It was supposed to say "fertilizers" but I'm sure you all got the point.

3/7/2004 10:54:47 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

This link will get you started. Read this - then ask away! LOL

http://www.msue.msu.edu/vanburen/e-896.htm

3/7/2004 11:01:58 PM

San Diego, Ca.

Thanks Steve, I'm going to have to read that over again....lots of info there.

3/8/2004 9:12:21 PM

Montoursville, PA

There are two philosophies out there. They have never changed. One is the organic or healthy patch growers who profess to build the living soil and use very few if any synthetic fertilizers.

It was after the wars or about 1940 when your fine USA government had to do something to save all the jobs created in our munitions plants that used thousands of people to make bombs. Nitrates were the basis of many munitions. Hence the war effort was turned into the new agriculture physocology and direction. The plants would now sell nitrates and other chemicals they could cook up and call fertilizers. A whole new industry developed. Trouble is they never put anything in their bags that created or supported life. They forgot what carbon was and proceeded to convince the entire farm community that they knew what was best for the farmers soil. Unfortunately they failed on page one and continue failing today for all of the same reasons. Without all the gorey details it is simple. Most of the synthetics if not all kill the natural bacteria. The natural bacteria are the very living part of the soil that can bring about a healthy soil building program in all instances.

That's the long and the short of it. The very healthy soil needed to heal itself from natural mistakes and man made error can not be supported by any synthetic fertilizer.

I guess what makes it difficult for most to understand is that the synthetic chemicals can in the short run excite plant growth at the expense of still more ruined bacterial and even higher forms of life.

I just could never understand how continued use of chemicals that maybe should be labeled "BIOCIDES" can continue to be placed and erroded into our water tables under the guise of being called fertilizers.

3/10/2004 4:23:07 PM

Montoursville, PA

For openers and a good basic understanding there are two easy to read basic paperback books....These are just two I like because I am lazy too. I read about what I have to and then revert to TV or sack time.

Dear Dirt Doctor, Garrett, Texas University Press and Let It Rot, Stu Campbell, Story Books Press. Both can be bought on line second handed if you like for less than fifteen bucks including shipping. It is a good buy and a better read. Go for it. Many of we hobby growers can make these changes instantly. Larger growers indeed face a much more difficult task.

3/10/2004 4:42:20 PM

San Diego, Ca.

Ok Doc, I've read so many of your posts talking about this Dear Dirt Doctor book I may as well go find me a copy since you got my curiosity up about whats in this book. My good friend Duster has been preaching organics to me also, which I think is a good idea and much more forgiving then adding too much of a fertilizer.
Not to worry Steve, I think there is a place for fertilizers also, as long as they are used in moderation and with a good understanding of its use.

3/10/2004 9:46:00 PM

Montoursville, PA

Hobby growers have an excellent chance of building the healthy patch because the needs for a small patch are reasonable and within reach and free...much of the time.

3/10/2004 10:19:05 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Gourdzilla, No worries here. LOL Since you asked specifically about commercial fertilizer ingredients, that is how I responded.

Sorry for the book. I have a bit to say so pull up a chair. LOL

I do not advocate the exclusive use of any one vehicle of delivery for plant producing elements. To advocate the proper use of commercial fertilizers does not negate the need for proper soil building. We must always strive to increase organic matter & the soil's biodiversity. Commercial fertilizers are a weak Bandaid if used alone & do almost nothing for long term soil building.

With some exceptions, as growers, I think we do a very poor job of understanding & using the different types of commercial fertilizers that are available to their fullest potential. Plant injury too often results.

In Joel Hollands videos, we see him using 14-14-14 Osmocote with his organic amendments. I don't recall him tilling in a 10-10-10 or 19-19-19 all mineral high salt index comercial ag-fertilizer. Take my word for it that the way he uses this high quality material does NOT damage the soil's biomass. In fact, he is improving it. His plants are deriving most of the chemical elements they need from his superior soil that he has taken years to build with organic soil amendments & manures. But Atlantic Giants feed more heavily than even the best soils can deliver all by themselves if tropies are to be desired. So he helps in a way that is not injurious to the plant or the soil.

Joel sets a very fine example. I can't wait for his "featured grower chat".

continued

3/11/2004 8:40:16 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

"Injurious" is relative to rate & salt content of the source material selected. Nitrates are too fast & salty for our uses unless the rate is very low such as their use in popular soluble foliar feeds. At these low rates they are not injurious to mycorrhizae, bacteria, worms or any other beneficial soil organism. The key is rate.

Though Nitrate useage has it's place, I don't recommend their use in the soil. Chilean Nitrate (sodium nitrate, salt peter, gun powder ingredient, call it what you will) is pulled from the coast of South America (Chilea) from former munitions mines. These mines have a horrific history that is worthy of a book all it's own.

I sell a 5-2-4 from Sustane (Natural Fertilizers of America) that is derived from Poultry. My biggest organic lawn care customer switched from my material to a competitor last year because they had bolstered their version from 5%N to 8%N. Thus he handles fewer bags & at lower cost. The competitors material is bolstered up with Chilean Nitrate. Organic? Not really. Natural as in it is unprocessed chemically. But it is still a mined mineral none the less as previously indicated.

The natural organic community is split on the use of saltpeter in organic fertilizers. I am not. I abhor the use of Chilean Nitrate in organics & feel the practice should not be tolerated.

This year I offer both 5-2-4 & 8-2-4 100% Natural Organic fertilizers. How? We raised the Nitrogen with the use of Blood & Corn Meal (both about 10-13% N). Is it still "Natural Organic"? You bet it is.

continued

3/11/2004 8:40:54 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Joel's Osmocote 14-14-14 starts life as a zero filler equal NPK commercial fertilizer. The analysis is reduced not through the use of fillers (as in most 10-10-10's) but rather the use of resin & polymer coatings that slow the availability of the chemcial elements contained within. The thickness of the coating dtermins release. The coating has weight. That weight is equal to 5% of the bags total. So the analysis drops from 19% to 14% without the use of fillers.

We produce more Polymer Coated Urea in the world than any other company. We start with 46-0-0 urea that is built from Ammonia & Carbon Dioxide gases that are not mined from former ammunitions plants. The coating is so advanced we can keep the analysis as high as 39-0-0 when we're finished processing the raw Nitrogen. This makes our Poly Plus the most desirable source of it's kind. Can you damage plants or soil with it? Sure. If you really screw up you can. But it is much more forgiving than the raw material it is derived from. After we blend in equal amount of polymer coated Phosphorus, Potash & micronutrients we're left with what else? 14-14-14 plus Micros. And it's pretty hard to cause damage with it too. That's a fact.

I'm going to author a more definitive explaination of these matters & post it to a different thread. There is way too much misunderstanding regarding commercial fertilizers on this board. I understand the confusion. I've spent all but 3 of my professional years in this industry. The last 15 years I've worked in fertilizer manufacture & sales. I am in the trenches every single day waging the war on misconceptions & deceptive marketing. The day I have to lie to get a sale is the day I find another career. I do this for the love of plants & found a way to get paid for that love. Every one should be so fortunate.

Enough ranting. I've got fertilizer to sell. All kinds! LOL

Steve

3/11/2004 8:41:03 AM

Iowa

Hey, I don't want to harp on anyone here, but commercial fertilizers are not all bad. They help feed the world. I don't know if any of you farm, but just try growing corn without the use of any commercial fertilizer and you won't be doing it very long. I know organics are best, but they are not practical for large scale agricultural production. And when they are used properly they can be very beneficial and not harm the soil or anyone. The US would not be the leader in agricultual production if it weren't for commercial fertilizers. Just a lowly farmer from Iowa's opinion.

3/11/2004 9:05:19 PM

Menomonie, WI (mail@gr8pumpkin.net)

Phonzie you are correct with your statement. The only problem with a chemical fertilizer is it puts nothing back in to the base. Sort of like the difference between eating a well balanced diet, or popping a couple of supplemental vitamins. With the current trends in Agriculture the quality of farm lands will deteriate rapidly. The sad thing around here is everytime a farmer goes under. A large scale operation gobbles his land up on a lease. They then farm the crap out of it until the soil is worthless and move on.

3/11/2004 11:25:46 PM

Montoursville, PA

The solid and correct answers are being formulated day by day, month by month and year by year. Synthetic fertilizers as we know them today will not sustain another fifty years. To much discovery is already history. Distribution of product remains the challenge. Application has been solved.
We have errored terribly bad for just a tad more than sixty years. The little guys can do something about it now. The rest will have to solve the delema or we are indeed in some deep guana and it won't be the kind that grows tatters.

I'm just a dumb dirt farmer with half an acre...this time but fellows synthetics either kill quickly or slowly. Fact! Wrapping it up in polymer to make the same product look like natures slow release way is just another chemistry ploy to advertise and sell the most expensive synthetic killer ever put in a box or a bottle.

I never in my life spent half a day tearing down a tire and tube to put on a patch and after I had it fixed took a smaller nail and punched the fix before putting it back together.

It amazes me sometimes to observe a similar soil building program that is undeniably excellent then ruined a little with a habit, in technology, grand pappy and the remaining pushers, of the synthetic stuff still maintain. To get that close and still desire to poison the effort does not quite make sense. Golly what in the world might have been the results with management technology that is used by already successfull indiviuals and corporate groups growing other foods, grains and fruits.

There are thousands of acres of Pennsylvania soil remaining that have never seen a synthetic fertilizer still being farmed successfully.

There is someone reading this exchange right now young enough and smart enough to help finish the job in their lifetime.

3/12/2004 1:03:34 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Over fertilization is the basic problem with chemical fertilizers. It does not kill the microorganisms but gives some of them the opportunity to outgrow the others. In this way many beneficial microorganisms are lost.

Chelates are molecules, which bind nutrients (like Fe, Ca, ) and make them more accessible to the plant (living organism make their own chelates anyway). In soil they also prevent the leaching of nutrients, which on the other hand is the basic environmental problem of the over-fertilization

3/13/2004 7:25:03 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Let me say one more global point. I see that may of growers restrict the use of chemical fertilizers because of care for the environment. This we can all do in our garden. But unfortunately it is not enough to act green only in our own garden. The emission of greenhouse gasses is a problem, which can be solved only by political agreements. So, everybody should realistically evaluate the acts of their government on this issue and react on the elections. What else can we do? Jernej

3/13/2004 8:01:09 AM