Fertilizer Price Tracker

mixedbag

Well-Known Member
V
At the moment there are trials been done on CAN which is been coated with a secret substance which makes it more effective and if the trials pan out then protected urea might be a thing of the past.
Very unlikely as the main emissions issues are associated with the manufacture of the CAN rather than what happens it on farm
 

mixedbag

Well-Known Member
I used urea40% with sulphur ,pasture & sul.The only thing I saw every bag was going off and starting to get hard .I just got straight urea and pasture this year .what advantage if any is on heavier ground
Sulphur is known to cause issues with fertiliser going hard, I try not to store products with sulphur for more than 6 months
 

KJL

Well-Known Member
Well if you inhibit chemical Nitrogen you also inhibit organic nitrogen. Protected Urea is less efficient in high OM soils.

Likewise, I wouldnt allow it near my soil, and there is push back coming about its use from a few angles.

Also soundings of potential other issues. I cant see it lasting, personally
Do you know of any trials on going, or that have been done on its interaction with soil biology? It would be interesting if there was.
 

Ozzy Scott

Well-Known Member
Do you know of any trials on going, or that have been done on its interaction with soil biology? It would be interesting if there was.
Dont know of any happening. Surely some taking place in some part of the world. But the science of how it works, determines what it does to organice soil Nitrogen aswell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJL

Barrowsider

Well-Known Member
Do you know of any trials on going, or that have been done on its interaction with soil biology? It would be interesting if there was.
I'd be very interested in seeing research to back up these concerns too. The only research I could find suggests minimal or no effect of urease inhibitors on soil biology. I'm sure there's a lot more work out there.


 
C

Cork

Guest
I’ve never actually used a bag of Urea in my life nor do I have a intention to do so.
I might chance granular urea if it was for nothing but my preference is for CCF CAN+S all day long.
It spreads well, it’s predictable regardless of weather and it stores well.
 

TAFKAT

Well-Known Member
I'd be very interested in seeing research to back up these concerns too. The only research I could find suggests minimal or no effect of urease inhibitors on soil biology. I'm sure there's a lot more work out there.


I wouldn't consider 16 days to be a long-term trial when it comes to anything never mind soil biology, the 2nd report is 25 years old and accepts in it's own conclusions that longer-term studies would give a better understanding of the long-term effects. I would be surprised if the research hasn't been done, I would be wary of the fact that the findings aren't widely available. I know a person who is employed to carry out research on the matter and has been unable to find reliable long-term trial information, they are in a far better position to dig it up than I am.
Johnstown Castle has been doing trials on the effect on soil biology. To date there are no differences showing whether urea, treated urea, or CAN were used
That will certainly be interesting whenever the results are published. There are other ways to inhibit urease beyond chemical means, the big fertilizer companies will invariably go for the cheapest and easiest to produce option.
 

thefarminglad

Well-Known Member
V

Very unlikely as the main emissions issues are associated with the manufacture of the CAN rather than what happens it on farm
It is manufactured before it reaches Ireland so does not add to our greenhouse gases. What they are trying to achieve with the coated CAN is make it more available to plants, something like 22% Can will be as effective as 27.5% can therefore cutting down on the amount of fert you need.
 

mixedbag

Well-Known Member
It is manufactured before it reaches Ireland so does not add to our greenhouse gases. What they are trying to achieve with the coated CAN is make it more available to plants, something like 22% Can will be as effective as 27.5% can therefore cutting down on the amount of fert you need.
That’s the crazy thing about the system they are using. The emissions from the manufacture of the fertiliser in another country that we use are linked to us, but no account is taken of the produce we export. Basically we’re caught from both sides. The whole emissions thing really frustrates me when you see businesses like a bank claiming to be carbon neutral, but in reality they are just buying carbon credits in one form or the other.
Making more effective use of every unit of N we apply would be a huge step forward, especially for water quality, but unless they sort out the crazy accounting system I’m not sure it will go far enough for gaseous emissions
 

Barrowsider

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't consider 16 days to be a long-term trial when it comes to anything never mind soil biology, the 2nd report is 25 years old and accepts in it's own conclusions that longer-term studies would give a better understanding of the long-term effects. I would be surprised if the research hasn't been done, I would be wary of the fact that the findings aren't widely available. I know a person who is employed to carry out research on the matter and has been unable to find reliable long-term trial information, they are in a far better position to dig it up than I am.

That will certainly be interesting whenever the results are published. There are other ways to inhibit urease beyond chemical means, the big fertilizer companies will invariably go for the cheapest and easiest to produce option.
I'm not suggesting those studies are absolute, but if urease inhibitors are indeed harmful to soil biology I'd love to see the research to back it up. Even if the research is only for 16 days or is 25 years old.
 

TAFKAT

Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting those studies are absolute, but if urease inhibitors are indeed harmful to soil biology I'd love to see the research to back it up. Even if the research is only for 16 days or is 25 years old.
And I'd love to see conclusive research to prove it wasn't harmful to soil biology before it was advocated for use on 3/4 of the country. Just different points of view.
 

Barrowsider

Well-Known Member
And I'd love to see conclusive research to prove it wasn't harmful to soil biology before it was advocated for use on 3/4 of the country. Just different points of view.
I couldn't agree more but you suggested that protected urea can have a "detrimental effect on soil biology long-term" and I'd be very interested to see research to back it up.
 

gone

Well-Known Member
And I'd love to see conclusive research to prove it wasn't harmful to soil biology before it was advocated for use on 3/4 of the country. Just different points of view.
That is very difficult to prove, all Fert is some what harmful to soil biology.
I have used it for the last few years, but moved back to Sulcan this year, I am a bit worried about it's interaction with soil biology.
CAN, Urea, TSP, DAP, MOP and ASN would fail to get clearance these days, they all cause damage to soil biology.
I'm not sure that 100% proof that any product will ever cause any damage to anything is a good thing.
 

TAFKAT

Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more but you suggested that protected urea can have a "detrimental effect on soil biology long-term" and I'd be very interested to see research to back it up.
As I said in my first post on the subject that's just my opinion that has been formed from having looked at the way the urease enzymes are inhibited, I have been at a couple of meetings where it was asked what the long-term effect on having these chemicals in the soil at far higher than current levels will be and no answers were forthcoming.
That is very difficult to prove, all Fert is some what harmful to soil biology.
I have used it for the last few years, but moved back to Sulcan this year, I am a bit worried about it's interaction with soil biology.
CAN, Urea, TSP, DAP, MOP and ASN would fail to get clearance these days, they all cause damage to soil biology.
I'm not sure that 100% proof that any product will ever cause any damage to anything is a good thing.
That's a fair comment, proof it isn't more harmful to soil biology would be a better way to put it, I just don't think soil biology is high on the list of priorities when emissions are the pressing issue being addressed. That will change soon enough though.
 

mixedbag

Well-Known Member
That's a fair comment, proof it isn't more harmful to soil biology would be a better way to put it, I just don't think soil biology is high on the list of priorities when emissions are the pressing issue being addressed. That will change soon enough though.
I think that is one of the big problems, we make changes because of one issue, but forget to look at what the implications are in other areas....and at times some of these future issues haven’t even been spoken about yet
 

Ozzy Scott

Well-Known Member
i cant fathom why the agenda wasnt to try reduce fertiliser by 5 or 10% that use inhibitors as the silver bullet. Most fert around here is sold on a Saturday morning, to be applied on grassland were if there is an increase in output, that increase wasnt needed in the first place.
 

Bencroy

Well-Known Member
Neighbour was asking me about nitrofert fertiliser and what its like.
Use yara myself and wouldnt be a fan of grassland .Just think it's too dusty compared to the yara.
Anyone using nitrofert on what's your views.be all on grass land with wagtails about here
 

Ugo Schtiglitz

Well-Known Member
Dont know of any happening. Surely some taking place in some part of the world. But the science of how it works, determines what it does to organice soil Nitrogen aswell.
There's an Austrian paper on it that I read some time ago, that suggests nbpt has reduced efficacy with increasing soil om. I was trawling for some answers (and this is not scientific observation) because I noticed that using it with chicken poop seemed to result in a delayed bang from the organic material applied as well. (particularly on spring crops). My suspicion is that the nbpt also inhibits n release from breakdown of applied organic n as well. If indeed, this is the case, it warrants further investigation, because the hunch is, it interferes with a fundamental soil function. I have more questions than answers about it, but having used it in the past and outside of these concerns, it works nicely on winter crops. The other fundamental is that it only makes sense when the price differential to Can is worthwhile, and industry seems to have reached a par on price point for it. Thereby taking a generally cheaper input, urea, adding special sauce (nbpt) and coming out at CAN price.
 
Top