Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sincock" data-source="post: 8097596" data-attributes="member: 156353">150-200 L/Ha is OK, but as always, the more water the better the coverage. Folex mu35 is a different product. Different manufacturing process and contains almost twice the free urea as Efficie-N-t 28 so be careful you don't scorch the grass! E28 is rain fast in 20 minutes, I would imagine Folex mu35 would be rain fast in a couple hours so no problem there. The following I have just posted in another thread, I am being a little lazy and haven't answered specifically but feel this answers your question pretty well. There is obviously a difference between Granular applied N and liquid N but there is still an increase in efficiency to be had, just to a lesser extent compared to granular...Granular applied N is between 40-60% efficient (on a good day). Any nitrates applied through the soil are easily taken in by the plant but remember it is a poison and requires / uses significant energy from the plant to turn NO3 into NH2. This means energy is wasted on turning the Nitrates (poison) into something useable (NH2), energy that could have been used for growing / driving yield. The typical "flush" of grow / greening you see following an application of AN, for example, is no more than the plant cells filling with water. This results in lower DM, increased risk of lodging and a significant increase in risk of disease. Granular applied N works by applying loads on in the hope that when the N is actually needed by the plant there is enough left. Take maize, roughly 40% of it's N requirement is after tasseling yet we apply N in the seed bed which means we have to apply more in the seed bed in the hope it doesn't all volatilise or leach before its needed.We don't eat all our food for the week on a Sunday night, we need little and often. Crops are the same. Foliar N is applied directly onto the leaf, it is extremely sticky, rain fast and slow release. Depending on the polymer content, and there is a big difference so be careful, it wont cause scorch and thanks to the form the N is supplied in, it is easily and efficiently absorbed through the leaf, no poison. The NUE of Foliar N depends on the Polymer %, the higher the percentage of Polymer the higher the NUE. The rest is Free Urea, which is no more or no less, dissolved urea. This is what causes scorch so as I said before be careful. The attached screenshot is trial data done by the AICC (so independent) last year using KWS Extase in Crowfield. You can see a reduction in total N applied resulted in almost no change in yield across the board. 290kg N/ha from granular fertiliser yielded 11.4t/ha where as 128kg N/ha from granular and foliar yielded 11.3t/ha. There is trial data going back 15 years showing similar results in almost every crop, including grass. Foliar N isn't going to replace all granular N and there is 100% still a place / need for it but, later applications of N can absolutely be replaced with Foliar to reduce total N applied while maintaining yields. For all the reason above and with 15 years worth of trial data, a lot of it independent, to back it up, we can say that 40kgs N/ha from granular can be replaced with just 7kgs N/ha from Efficie-N-t 28 for comparable yields. Other Foliar fertiliser are available, results will be different as they contain different Polymer and Free Urea percentages. Also beware of scorch. Efficie-N-t 28 contains 22% Polymer and 6% Free urea. Most other products contain twice the amount of free urea and therefore come with a very real scorch risk!</blockquote>

Verification