Nitro surf

Disclaimer: I have never used the stuff. Reading the labels for both and following the discussion, unless I am missing something there's little to no fertilizer value in either of the products mentioned. The claim is the nitrogen enhances the uptake of the herbicide by the plant. Labeling rules require a listing of the ingredients and percentages of each in the product. NitroSurf goes beyond the requirements to offer what looks like a guaranteed fertilizer analysis 25-0-0. The manufacturer specification says the product weighs 10.25 lbs per gallon. So one gallon supplies about 2.5 lbs of actual N. Label use rates are far below one gallon making the nitrogen from the product available to the crop virtually zero. Providing a guaranteed analysis can only be a marketing gimmick.

AMS only lists ingredients. It contains 34% ammonium sulfate. Ammonium sulfate is 21% elemental N. The amount of N, then, supplied by AMS is 21% multiplied by 34% or 7%. If a gallon of AMS weighs 10 lb the application of a gallon supplies less than one pound of actual N.

What am I missing or what have I misunderstood or miscalculated?
Maybe I (wrongfully?) assumed that the 25-0-0 would be equivalent to 25 lbs of nitrogen after dilution/mixing with the correct rates of water. If that's not the case, then how are farmers switching over to liquid fertilizer and getting results equivalent to what amounts to tons of dry synthetic fertilizer?
 
Maybe I (wrongfully?) assumed that the 25-0-0 would be equivalent to 25 lbs of nitrogen after dilution/mixing with the correct rates of water. If that's not the case, then how are farmers switching over to liquid fertilizer and getting results equivalent to what amounts to tons of dry synthetic fertilizer?
I don't know where to start. I'm not sure how anhydrous ammonia fits into what I'm about to say so I'm going to ignore it. Here's the generalization. All (?) liquid fertilizers start with a dry product dissolved in some appropriate solvent. Chemists got that figure out. Why do liquids? There are some crazy claims, it seems to me, about the increased effectiveness of liquids over dry. I am not a believer. In my book liquids are used effectively two places. They can be used at planting simultaneously. Add some saddle tanks to the planter, dribble and plant. But, it's only starter fertilizer. The other place to use liquid fertilizers is as a carrier rather than water. Kill two tasks at the same time. And if a farming operation prefers, buying and storing liquid fertilizer in tanks is a lot easier than handling dry fertilizers. So, economics get confusing when considering source. I will go so far as to say the nutrient supply from liquids and dry are equivalent. The issue is the cost of the solvent used to manufacture liquids.

Urea Ammonium Nitrate (UAN) is a liquid fertilizer often used at planting; as a carrier for herbicide applications; and side-dressed. For purposes here I am going to assume it is 30%N. No P. No K. The guaranteed analysis is 30-0-0. If you want to side dress corn at 100 lb N per acre you will need to apply 333 lbs of UAN. But it's liquid! We know UAN weighs 10.84 lbs per gallon. So we need to load the tank with 31 gallons and calibrate the application to deliver the same.

Or, you can choose a dry fertilizer applied in a different process. To get 100 lbs of N from urea assuming a guaranteed analysis of 46-0-0 use 218 lbs (100/.46).

If urea cost $567 a ton and UAN costs $375 a ton which one are you going to use? Trick question. In production ag after one makes a decision about production process and the equipment is bought you use the one that fits your system.

Back to NitroSurf. The source material is surfactant, other ingredients, and a mixture of ammonium nitrate and urea. Further, in that 2 1/2 gallon jug which weighs a little over 25 lbs, 62% of the 25 lbs is the mix of urea and ammonium nitrate. We don't know how much of each, only that the final product offers 25% N, 0 p, 0 k.
So you can add the entire 25 lb, 2 1/2 gallon jug to your finished spray product and you will only add 6.25 lbs of N spread over whatever area you are covering.

But you only use a pint per acre?

If you want more N then you will need to buy another product to add to your fertilization regime.

Hope that makes some sense.
 
Maybe I (wrongfully?) assumed that the 25-0-0 would be equivalent to 25 lbs of nitrogen after dilution/mixing with the correct rates of water. If that's not the case, then how are farmers switching over to liquid fertilizer and getting results equivalent to what amounts to tons of dry synthetic fertilizer?
So if it’s a 20lb jug, and 50% water, it’s only 10lbs of 25-0-0. So you’d have to put a loooot on there to meet granular equivalency.

That said, there is data on foliar spray applications at lower rates doing well.
 
So if it’s a 20lb jug, and 50% water, it’s only 10lbs of 25-0-0. So you’d have to put a loooot on there to meet granular equivalency.

That said, there is data on foliar spray applications at lower rates doing well.
I'd have to imagine that nutrient uptake through foliar applications is more efficient than through the soil, especially for P and K.
 
I'd have to imagine that nutrient uptake through foliar applications is more efficient than through the soil, especially for P and K.
Agreed. Think how much fertilizer put on the dirt is wasted
 
My weeds grow really well no matter what I put on the ground. 😲😖
Well....that is the big reason you'r putting the Nitro surf on the leaves.....not to stimulate your crops......but rather in order to stimulate the weeds into growing and thus take up the herbicide along with the nitrogen.
 
My weeds grow really well no matter what I put on the ground.

Have you tried gypsum and lime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well....that is the big reason you'r putting the Nitro surf on the leaves.....not to stimulate your crops......but rather in order to stimulate the weeds into growing and thus take up the herbicide along with the nitrogen.
Or that would be the theory. Good management supersedes additional, costly "helpers."
 
I'd have to imagine that nutrient uptake through foliar applications is more efficient than through the soil, especially for P and K.
In small rescue amounts. There's no substitute for substantial soil reserves.
 
Top