Rape phosphate dressings

[Brisel]

Fibrophos is certainly abrasive & corrosive but I'm unsure of how "hot" it is on the crop. My predecessors have killed cotyledon stage osr by applying 0.12.12 but what isn't clear is whether it was from the abrasion or any toxicity. I'd be wary of putting it in a seed hopper unless is was totally dry & there was good agitation to prevent it bridging.

@tw15 - does your drill put the fertiliser down a separate spout away from the seed or is it dropped into the same airstream?

 

[franklin]

We often, when conditions allow, put fibrophos at fairly high rates onto cereals in spring.

I am very sceptical about all this fert placing. Go pull up a rape plant. See that the rootlets come out of the main tap root. I have measured a load and find that they usually extend about 10cm. Result - I drill all my OSR on 12.5cm rows so I know that the lateral roots will be able to scavenge broadcast fert. If I were drilling in bands, I would go for a nitrogen/phosphate liquid in the band. If you are drilling on say 60cm rows, and you know that your lateral roots are going say 10cm, then in my eyes that leaves a band of soil that doesnt get much sucked out from.....but the crop still yields. So whats the benefit? Put a bit of liquid starter fert to give that early boost, then spread the offtake over the soil using fibrophos.

This year I broadcast 250kg/ha MAP giving 30N and about 3 years P. I did this in August. Perhaps when it rains the crop will actually use some. Otherwise I wouldnt get overly excitied about the whole job, and certainly wouldnt spend a fortune on application kit. Phosphate mobility is low and roots only pick it up from very close to them, so worry about getting your plants to root and carry on feeding the soil.

Fibrophos = better than TSP + MOP and usually cheaper.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I think if you are significantly short then placing is worth it. Possibly also has a place in a cold spring particularly visually. That said I don't think most soils in the UK are significantly short.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Ah, so its Phosphites your talking about, tried at least 3 different types at different stages, had some responses mainly in difficult situations but in the main hard to see a benefit. We are generally high in P across the farm and since our Nitrates directive a no of years ago we would be breaking the rules by applying P fert so have held off (also our mainstream soil scientists tell us we dont need it because of Indexes). BUT since then yields are back and I have been trying to study Albrecht (largely discredited according to your site) and this is where I have learnt of pH's effect on P untake and Calcium lockup with P etc etc.

I dont want to be in any way dissrespectful and I am glad to see independant companies like yours with different viewpoints. and I wish to learn as much as I can on different soil testing techniques and crop treatments, mainstream or not, but Im am becoming a bit sceptical about some sales of this remidy or that. Independant replicated trials the only proof I am afraid, there is not much money in the kitty after 2 crap harvests to use these products unless we are almost guaranteed a response. The cost of some bio products and micro ferts are a bit much also IMO.

That said I remain optomistic that we may get benefits from biologicals and stimulants into the future both in terms of yield and crop health but they remain very much unproven and on trial in my head.

I may well send a few soil samples your way if thats OK to look at your findings and compare your recomandations with conventional and Albrecht. Sorry Im a bit grumpy today so sorry for rant! Not aimed at you @EmeraldCropSci .

For me apart from Nyle Bradys' book there have been three very informative books that explains about soil science and practical crop growing for direct drilling etc.

1. Carlos Crovetto - No Tillage
2. How Soils Work - Syltie
3. Zimmer - Biological Farmer

Things like Teaming with Microbes and the Kinsey book help a little bit too.

Mostly they encourage you to use whats in the soil to get your aims. Albrecht info has a place but in the main I think it is overstated at times. The other thing to remember with biological products is that they will always "sometimes work and sometimes not work", that is the very nature of biology but you can get your ground to do it for you first before spending money on products.

 

[Clive]

I have no doubt most of these things we all spend time talking about and studying work

however all are useless unless we also get the weather to push yields as is evident this year and last

so the question in my head right now is not do various nutrients / trace elements matter but more can I afford the gamble pushing for high yields with no nutritional limit or not ?

 

[Brisel]

so the question in my head right now is not do various nutrients / trace elements matter but more can I afford the gamble pushing for high yields with no nutritional limit or not ?

That's the big question!

Feeding the soil to feed the plant is great & a sound philosiphy but getting crops in early into well structured soils in good conditions must be the starting point. Help the plants to help themselves.

Sorry to state the obvious but I feel this frequently gets overlooked when folk talk about fancy application kit & placement.

 

[franklin]

Bit of rain might help mine.

 

[Clive]

Bit of rain might help mine.

should be here friday

 

[Brisel]

We often, when conditions allow, put fibrophos at fairly high rates onto cereals in spring.

Does it harm the growing crop in your opinion?

 

[tw15]

Fibrophos is certainly abrasive & corrosive but I'm unsure of how "hot" it is on the crop. My predecessors have killed cotyledon stage osr by applying 0.12.12 but what isn't clear is whether it was from the abrasion or any toxicity. I'd be wary of putting it in a seed hopper unless is was totally dry & there was good agitation to prevent it bridging.

@tw15 - does your drill put the fertiliser down a separate spout away from the seed or is it dropped into the same airstream?

It places the fert about an inch to inch and a half deeper and to the side of the seed by about an inch.
It has 2 separate tubes one for seed and one for fert .

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

Ah, so its Phosphites your talking about, tried at least 3 different types at different stages, had some responses mainly in difficult situations but in the main hard to see a benefit. We are generally high in P across the farm and since our Nitrates directive a no of years ago we would be breaking the rules by applying P fert so have held off (also our mainstream soil scientists tell us we dont need it because of Indexes). BUT since then yields are back and I have been trying to study Albrecht (largely discredited according to your site) and this is where I have learnt of pH's effect on P untake and Calcium lockup with P etc etc.

I dont want to be in any way dissrespectful and I am glad to see independant companies like yours with different viewpoints. and I wish to learn as much as I can on different soil testing techniques and crop treatments, mainstream or not, but Im am becoming a bit sceptical about some sales of this remidy or that. Independant replicated trials the only proof I am afraid, there is not much money in the kitty after 2 crap harvests to use these products unless we are almost guaranteed a response. The cost of some bio products and micro ferts are a bit much also IMO.

That said I remain optomistic that we may get benefits from biologicals and stimulants into the future both in terms of yield and crop health but they remain very much unproven and on trial in my head.

I may well send a few soil samples your way if thats OK to look at your findings and compare your recomandations with conventional and Albrecht. Sorry Im a bit grumpy today so sorry for rant! Not aimed at you @EmeraldCropSci .

No problem with rant - and scepticism is desirable in the area of crop nutrition where much snake oil abounds…

Apologies for the rather long response, but I felt your comments needed some consideration.

However, before responding directly I’d like to start by stating, for the record, that I qualified as a Soil Scientist from Reading University in 1980 and have worked as both a researcher and adviser in soils & crop nutrition around the World, especially in the areas of nutrient availability and crop uptake and their relationship to soil analysis methods. In other words, I hope I know something about this subject by now.

I know that this thread didn't start on the subject of Albrecht, but since you mentioned it and it does keep cropping up, I’d like to try to separate out some entanglements of truth and myth presented by some proponents of this. Unfortunately the conflation of solid fact with its core philosophy makes it difficult to pick out what is ‘real’ from a heap of statements.

Much of what is said is true and accepted in mainstream soil science. The presence of significant quantities of Ca, Mg and K in the soil is important to adequate crop growth. As I’ve said previously, P availability is affected by pH and, yes, Ca at higher pH is increasingly involved in sorbing P into a range of Ca-P minerals, making P increasingly unavailable. However, below pH 6.5 other minerals – mainly Al, Fe, Mn and silicates - are predominantly responsible for reactions with P making it increasingly unavailable as pH decreases. pH is the key determinant.

Stripping everything else away the key central claim within the Albrecht approach that differentiates it from accepted soil science is the assertion that there are strict confines of ‘ideal’ ratios for the major Cations (Ca, Mg & K) as a percentage of Base Saturation (Base Saturation Ratios) for total Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) i.e. cationic balancing, particularly for Ca:Mg. This idea was based originally on limited research on soils in Missouri in the late 1930's and 1940's.

I could go on about this for a considerable time, however, there are a large number of scientific papers devoted to the refutation of this concept, particularly in recent times, such as the detailed reviews by Kopittke & Menzies (Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:259–265, 2007) or Simson et al. (Commun. Soil Sci. and Plant Anal. 10:153-162 1979), and I can probably do no better than quote from Dr D.C. Edmeades addressing the 26th Annual Conference of The Grassland Society in 2011 in his paper “Pseudo-science: a threat to agriculture?”:

“Similarly, farmers … are being told by pseudo-scientists that the ‘old’ method of soil testing and fertiliser advice, which is based on scientific evidence, is out of-date and that a theory, suppressed for years by the establishment, has been rediscovered – Professor Albrecht’s Base Cation Ratio Theory is now in vogue. Once again this is pseudo-science in action for it is known that the Ratio Theory is, not only technically flawed, but results in grossly incorrect fertiliser advice and hence inefficient agricultural production.”

Having said all that it is undoubtedly true that "available" soil K and Mg levels are important one to the other BUT NOT because of any Cation exchange effect in the soil, but because it has been established that the two ions compete with each other at the root surface and inside the root for uptake and distribution into the plant – in other words a cellular membrane antagonism. For this reason only, K:Mg levels in soil do need to be understood and adjustments made to fertiliser applications – usually Magnesium – for specific crops.


With respect to Phosphites and their activity, trial results are, as you say, limited. I shall dig some out and post them when I’ve done so.

Phosphite formulation is undoubtedly very important here – like any active chemical (e.g. a fungicide) the means (formulation) by which it is taken into a plant is crucial in delivering effectiveness. Nevertheless, in my experience and in the crop trials we’ve conducted and other research we’ve seen, specific formulations do have a marked positive benefit on rooting and yield, particularly where soil P levels are already deemed adequate. This is because the biostimulation effect that it has is not directly related to poor P nutrition. Some crops also respond better than others to Phosphites.


With respect to soil analysis, if you would like to submit soil samples for analysis and interpretation for a specific crop, then we’d be very happy to do so and I’d be very happy to discuss this with you further.

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

It would be even more interesting to see if the yield is any different too - my cynicism for wonder seed dressings/phosphites/etc extends to a big potential spend for better looking crops without a positive margin over input cost. Perhaps I just want to see black & white when in fact there are many shades of grey...

@EmeraldCropSci - what is your view on Fibrophos/P Grow type products, particularly for high Ca high pH soils please?

I think Fibrophos/P is a perfectly good material and source of P, however, I wouldn't expect it to perform significantly differently from TSP and maybe not as well as MAP in your case (assuming you can also add some N). In any case I wouldn't want the seed directly against any fertiliser granule. Cost per Unit P is obviously a consideration too.

Taking your other point about good looking crops, the key with W.OSR for example, is to come out of the Winter into Spring with a plant population of 25–30 plants/sq.m . Therefore the objective in the Winter is to attain this target with healthy, well-rooted plants able to support a significant canopy in the Spring. Hence sowing as near to this rate as you dare and your land allows and applying products (fertiliser/foliar nutrients) that promote plant health (according to soil analysis) and root growth are the way I like to go.

 

[franklin]

Does it harm the growing crop in your opinion?

No. Although I havent been over about 900kg/ha on growing wheat. That would have been mid to late March. But for me it is not preferable as ground conditions are seldom good enough.

In case anyone missed it last time, I found this on MAP vs DAP. http://ifa-coop.com/agronomy-articles/map-11-52-0-vs-dap-18-46-0

Mentally, I have always in the past worked on the idea that the plant wants P in the autumn and K in the spring. But I have learnt that in reality what they prefer are nutrients available for the in the soil when they want them.

 

[JNG]

No problem with rant - and scepticism is desirable in the area of crop nutrition where much snake oil abounds…

Apologies for the rather long response, but I felt your comments needed some consideration.

However, before responding directly I’d like to start by stating, for the record, that I qualified as a Soil Scientist from Reading University in 1980 and have worked as both a researcher and adviser in soils & crop nutrition around the World, especially in the areas of nutrient availability and crop uptake and their relationship to soil analysis methods. In other words, I hope I know something about this subject by now.

I know that this thread didn't start on the subject of Albrecht, but since you mentioned it and it does keep cropping up, I’d like to try to separate out some entanglements of truth and myth presented by some proponents of this. Unfortunately the conflation of solid fact with its core philosophy makes it difficult to pick out what is ‘real’ from a heap of statements.

Much of what is said is true and accepted in mainstream soil science. The presence of significant quantities of Ca, Mg and K in the soil is important to adequate crop growth. As I’ve said previously, P availability is affected by pH and, yes, Ca at higher pH is increasingly involved in sorbing P into a range of Ca-P minerals, making P increasingly unavailable. However, below pH 6.5 other minerals – mainly Al, Fe, Mn and silicates - are predominantly responsible for reactions with P making it increasingly unavailable as pH decreases. pH is the key determinant.

Stripping everything else away the key central claim within the Albrecht approach that differentiates it from accepted soil science is the assertion that there are strict confines of ‘ideal’ ratios for the major Cations (Ca, Mg & K) as a percentage of Base Saturation (Base Saturation Ratios) for total Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) i.e. cationic balancing, particularly for Ca:Mg. This idea was based originally on limited research on soils in Missouri in the late 1930's and 1940's.

I could go on about this for a considerable time, however, there are a large number of scientific papers devoted to the refutation of this concept, particularly in recent times, such as the detailed reviews by Kopittke & Menzies (Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:259–265, 2007) or Simson et al. (Commun. Soil Sci. and Plant Anal. 10:153-162 1979), and I can probably do no better than quote from Dr D.C. Edmeades addressing the 26th Annual Conference of The Grassland Society in 2011 in his paper “Pseudo-science: a threat to agriculture?”:

“Similarly, farmers … are being told by pseudo-scientists that the ‘old’ method of soil testing and fertiliser advice, which is based on scientific evidence, is out of-date and that a theory, suppressed for years by the establishment, has been rediscovered – Professor Albrecht’s Base Cation Ratio Theory is now in vogue. Once again this is pseudo-science in action for it is known that the Ratio Theory is, not only technically flawed, but results in grossly incorrect fertiliser advice and hence inefficient agricultural production.”

Having said all that it is undoubtedly true that "available" soil K and Mg levels are important one to the other BUT NOT because of any Cation exchange effect in the soil, but because it has been established that the two ions compete with each other at the root surface and inside the root for uptake and distribution into the plant – in other words a cellular membrane antagonism. For this reason only, K:Mg levels in soil do need to be understood and adjustments made to fertiliser applications – usually Magnesium – for specific crops.


With respect to Phosphites and their activity, trial results are, as you say, limited. I shall dig some out and post them when I’ve done so.

Phosphite formulation is undoubtedly very important here – like any active chemical (e.g. a fungicide) the means (formulation) by which it is taken into a plant is crucial in delivering effectiveness. Nevertheless, in my experience and in the crop trials we’ve conducted and other research we’ve seen, specific formulations do have a marked positive benefit on rooting and yield, particularly where soil P levels are already deemed adequate. This is because the biostimulation effect that it has is not directly related to poor P nutrition. Some crops also respond better than others to Phosphites.


With respect to soil analysis, if you would like to submit soil samples for analysis and interpretation for a specific crop, then we’d be very happy to do so and I’d be very happy to discuss this with you further.

Thank you and well written. Sorry to have induced you into spending part of your working day typing such a long response. My thoughts on Albrecht are quite simple and not from a soil scientist point of view but a farmers. I will go broke trying to reduce a limestone based soil into the correct Ca/Mg ratio of 68-12 or whatever it is, my soils will revert back to its base rock which is limestone? On the other hand the Morgans method of soil testing which is what is used in Ireland is leaving me short of P which is prob unavailable because of pH, even though indexes are high. subsequently yields have dropped (Im sure there are other reasons also but this is likely to be one).

So I find myself falling between the two which is If Im correct kind of your position also as well as others I have spoken too in the UK, you can probably quess who. For me it is all about root growth as on our dry soils we need all the roots we can grow to get moisture which is in short supply in the type of Springs we tend to be getting at the moment. It is for this reason I have been trying some Phosphites/ seaweeds/amino acids etc etc over the past few years to try and get some benefits. I try to keep an open mind.

I shall contact you personally to speak about a few things in next few days. Thanks again.

 

[EmeraldCropSci]

Thank you and well written. Sorry to have induced you into spending part of your working day typing such a long response. My thoughts on Albrecht are quite simple and not from a soil scientist point of view but a farmers. I will go broke trying to reduce a limestone based soil into the correct Ca/Mg ratio of 68-12 or whatever it is, my soils will revert back to its base rock which is limestone? On the other hand the Morgans method of soil testing which is what is used in Ireland is leaving me short of P which is prob unavailable because of pH, even though indexes are high. subsequently yields have dropped (Im sure there are other reasons also but this is likely to be one).

So I find myself falling between the two which is If Im correct kind of your position also as well as others I have spoken too in the UK, you can probably quess who. For me it is all about root growth as on our dry soils we need all the roots we can grow to get moisture which is in short supply in the type of Springs we tend to be getting at the moment. It is for this reason I have been trying some Phosphites/ seaweeds/amino acids etc etc over the past few years to try and get some benefits. I try to keep an open mind.

I shall contact you personally to speak about a few things in next few days. Thanks again.

You cannot "correct" the soil Ca/Mg ratio and there is no point in trying to do so, as you've rightly identified.

I am very familiar with Morgan's method, which is also used in Scotland, and is suited only to acidic & neutral soils. As an acid-based extractant, it severely over-estimates available P in alkaline soil and has very poor correlation with plant uptake. Unfortunately the SI378 from Teagasc (equivalent to RB209 in the England/Wales) requires that you comply with the Indices it produces and the resulting applications - again, much like RB209. RB209 relies upon Olsen's extraction, which is much better with neutral to alkaline soils - but by no means perfect on its own.

In both situations the reliance on "clunky" Indices is in my view a genuine issue where fertiliser can be drastically under- or over- recommended.

Incidentally, our soil analysis interpretation system works for SI378 as well as RB209 and, indeed, most European and overseas soils & crops (our latest crop has been intensive growing of bananas in the Philippines!)

I have some ideas that we may want to discuss, but I'm very serious about trying to deliver greatly improved rooting in the Autumn, as are you.

 

[SilliamWhale]

I like what @EmeraldCropSci is saying . Summing up a lot of what my feelings were about the Albrecht stuff way better than I could (ie that it has merit but no need to go to town on it and spend heaps of money trying to change).

The only area I always get a bit jittery is when looking at the products and wondering exactly what mark up is made and what proportions of nutrients are in each can of branded product. Obviously some is based on humic and fulvics but a lot of the other stuff you could possibly home mix or replace for cheaper using all sorts of things like Kali, Bittersalz etc. for cheaper and if you have a healthy biologically active soil then would you need them?

That said I remain open minded and will probably do a couple of soil tests to learn some more

p.s. And I know this may sound petulant but when it comes to the key nutrients I still feel that something that comes on an artic, lime spreader or muckspreader still offers better value than something that comes out of a tranny van! In order of Muckspreader, Limespreader and Artic though!

 

[Micronutrient]

Ah, so its Phosphites your talking about, tried at least 3 different types at different stages, had some responses mainly in difficult situations but in the main hard to see a benefit. We are generally high in P across the farm and since our Nitrates directive a no of years ago we would be breaking the rules by applying P fert so have held off (also our mainstream soil scientists tell us we dont need it because of Indexes). BUT since then yields are back and I have been trying to study Albrecht (largely discredited according to your site) and this is where I have learnt of pH's effect on P untake and Calcium lockup with P etc etc.

I dont want to be in any way dissrespectful and I am glad to see independant companies like yours with different viewpoints. and I wish to learn as much as I can on different soil testing techniques and crop treatments, mainstream or not, but Im am becoming a bit sceptical about some sales of this remidy or that. Independant replicated trials the only proof I am afraid, there is not much money in the kitty after 2 crap harvests to use these products unless we are almost guaranteed a response. The cost of some bio products and micro ferts are a bit much also IMO.

That said I remain optomistic that we may get benefits from biologicals and stimulants into the future both in terms of yield and crop health but they remain very much unproven and on trial in my head.

I may well send a few soil samples your way if thats OK to look at your findings and compare your recomandations with conventional and Albrecht. Sorry Im a bit grumpy today so sorry for rant! Not aimed at you @EmeraldCropSci .

1. Albrecht is deeply misleading, and very unscientific.
2. Micronutrient products are priced according to what they can deliver. What does that mean… mm.. well if trials show that they regularly and reliably deliver a £20/ha benefit to the end user then the chances are they are going to be sold for £4-£5/ha. That would be a product from a reputable specialist manufacturer. Alternatively there are companies who say to those reputable specialists “Can you make me a product just like or very similar to Bloggo 500 from Company Y, that I can sell under my own label/brand?” “Oh and I have to be cheaper than Bloggo 500 obviously”. Is the product going to be as good as Bloggo 500? Obviously not, will it deliver value for money? - probably not.
3. If you deal with a company that actually makes the products it sells (and you’d be very surprised how few of those there are) you are more likely to get a product that performs and gives you value for money.
4. Would you home-mix your own fungicides or herbicides, no of course you wouldn’t. Apart from being illegal, it isn’t worth the risk of a failure, and it’s exactly the same with foliar nutrition. You don’t end up with a product that performs just by putting humic or fulvic’s into it, no sir, far from it…. The manganese product that is the top performer at 0.5L/ha (75g Mn/ha) contains only 1.6g/L humic/fulvic, but it is absolutely crucial what the source is and how it’s prepared.
A holistic approach to crop nutrition leads to healthier soil ecosystem/biology

 

[SilliamWhale]

1. Albrecht is deeply misleading, and very unscientific.
2. Micronutrient products are priced according to what they can deliver. What does that mean… mm.. well if trials show that they regularly and reliably deliver a £20/ha benefit to the end user then the chances are they are going to be sold for £4-£5/ha. That would be a product from a reputable specialist manufacturer. Alternatively there are companies who say to those reputable specialists “Can you make me a product just like or very similar to Bloggo 500 from Company Y, that I can sell under my own label/brand?” “Oh and I have to be cheaper than Bloggo 500 obviously”. Is the product going to be as good as Bloggo 500? Obviously not, will it deliver value for money? - probably not.
3. If you deal with a company that actually makes the products it sells (and you’d be very surprised how few of those there are) you are more likely to get a product that performs and gives you value for money.
4. Would you home-mix your own fungicides or herbicides, no of course you wouldn’t. Apart from being illegal, it isn’t worth the risk of a failure, and it’s exactly the same with foliar nutrition. You don’t end up with a product that performs just by putting humic or fulvic’s into it, no sir, far from it…. The manganese product that is the top performer at 0.5L/ha (75g Mn/ha) contains only 1.6g/L humic/fulvic, but it is absolutely crucial what the source is and how it’s prepared.
A holistic approach to crop nutrition leads to healthier soil ecosystem/biology

Well there is a bit more clarity with fungicides and herbicides at times. Certainly we mix different cheap actives to kill certain plants in a weed spectrum rather than an all singing dancing compilation in a can at higher cost.

My fear over some foliar feeds is a little like the ground lime vs prilled lime debate. For example I know unarguably that ground lime (presuming it is tested and up to scratch Nv%) is a better value product than prilled - prilled is slightly more available by being finely ground but beyond that it is basically very expensive. I have a sneaking suspicion that many foliars are the same but it is difficult to know what is what so how does one sort the wheat from the chaff? Also there is no real blueprint for foliar feed success.

 

[jammygit]

Several things making my head spin! Why don't roots grow upwards, sidewards? Gravity? So with seed dressings isn't the root always growing away from its nutrients? What decides the path the roots take? Osmosis? least resistance? Or magnetism? (manganese of course being one of the few magnetic elements) Is gravity simply a mass pull or do we move into the realms of quantum fields and the higgs bosun? buy me a drink and I won't mention it again.

 

[franklin]

Gravity isnt it? I though shoots were phototropic and roots geotropic. Or summat or nofink.