|
Home > Archive > Lawn and Garden forum > March 2007 > fertilizer
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Ralph Mowery 2007-03-21, 8:25 pm |
| I went to Sothern States and bought several bags of fertilizer. When I got
home I notice it was not exectally what I thought I was getting. The bag
had numbers of 24-4-4 and the 40 lb bag said it covered 8500 sqft. It did
have some weed killer in it that another brand did not have , but the other
bag had the same 24-4-4 in it and covers 15000 sqft. Why would one cover
almost twice the footage as the other ? I could see it being in the weed
killer, but the nitrogen being a high number like 24 seems that it would
make that way too much.
| |
| Steveo 2007-03-21, 8:25 pm |
| "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28146@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I went to Sothern States and bought several bags of fertilizer. When I
> got home I notice it was not exectally what I thought I was getting. The
> bag had numbers of 24-4-4 and the 40 lb bag said it covered 8500 sqft.
> It did have some weed killer in it that another brand did not have , but
> the other bag had the same 24-4-4 in it and covers 15000 sqft. Why
> would one cover almost twice the footage as the other ? I could see it
> being in the weed killer, but the nitrogen being a high number like 24
> seems that it would make that way too much.
>
The herbicide carrier dilutes the amount of fertilizer per pound of
product.
| |
|
| On Mar 21, 5:15 pm, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The herbicide carrier dilutes the amount of fertilizer per pound of
> product.
Where in the hell did you get an idea like that? 24-4-4 means a total
of 32 lbs of fertilizer, no matter who bags it or what else it
contains. USDA requires standard labeling on all fertilizer.
To give the OP an honest answer, I'd say the texture of the fertilizer
would be the difference. Coarse fertilizer would cover half the area
that a finer fertilizer would cover.
Bob
| |
| Steveo 2007-03-23, 3:25 am |
| "Bob" <tigerx813@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 5:15 pm, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Where in the hell did you get an idea like that?
>
Simple math, and I do mean simple.
24-0-0 will do 12,000 sq ft with a full pound of N in a 50 lb bag.
Is this your first year in lawncare, Bob?
| |
| Steveo 2007-03-23, 3:25 am |
| "Bob" <tigerx813@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Coarse fertilizer would cover half the area
> that a finer fertilizer would cover.
> Bob
>
Is that you Stubby?
| |
| Steveo 2007-03-23, 3:25 am |
| Steveo <moparholic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob" <tigerx813@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Simple math, and I do mean simple.
>
> 24-0-0 will do 12,000 sq ft with a full pound of N in a 50 lb bag.
>
> Is this your first year in lawncare, Bob?
>
Gotta mark this one in case you're stubby. (jackass)
24.214.115.37
| |
|
| Steveo wrote:
> "Bob" <tigerx813@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Simple math, and I do mean simple.
>
> 24-0-0 will do 12,000 sq ft with a full pound of N in a 50 lb bag.
A 50# bag of 24-0-0 will contain 12 lbs of nitrogen.
Lar
| |
|
| On Mar 22, 8:38 pm, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob" <tigerx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Simple math, and I do mean simple.
>
> 24-0-0 will do 12,000 sq ft with a full pound of N in a 50 lb bag.
>
> Is this your first year in lawncare, Bob?
I guess you're a politician since you doubletalk and dodge the issues.
You said the herbicide carrier dilutes the amount of fertilizer per
pound of product. It doesn't. There is just as much fertilizer in a
bag whether it has a herbicide or not. There is filler in every bag
and the herbicide uses up about 1/4lb of the filler, not the
fertilizer.
You said a full pound of N in a 50 lb bag will do will do 12k sq ft.
Since there's 12 pounds of N in a 24-0-0 bag, are you saying it'll do
144k sq ft?
And no, I have a hell of a lot of years of lawn & AG experience along
with a wall full of certificates from one of the top AG colleges in
the country. What do you base your lack of knowledge on?
Bob
| |
| Steveo 2007-03-24, 9:25 am |
| "Bob" <tigerx813@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:38 pm, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess you're a politician since you doubletalk and dodge the issues.
> You said the herbicide carrier dilutes the amount of fertilizer per
> pound of product. It doesn't. There is just as much fertilizer in a
> bag whether it has a herbicide or not. There is filler in every bag
> and the herbicide uses up about 1/4lb of the filler, not the
> fertilizer.
>
Double speak and back-peddle. You know exactly what I mean.
>
> You said a full pound of N in a 50 lb bag will do will do 12k sq ft.
> Since there's 12 pounds of N in a 24-0-0 bag, are you saying it'll do
> 144k sq ft?
>
I've already told you how many sq ft it will do, read it again.
>
> And no, I have a hell of a lot of years of lawn & AG experience along
> with a wall full of certificates from one of the top AG colleges in
> the country. What do you base your lack of knowledge on?
> Bob
>
The company I own treats around fifty million sg ft per season.
Now please be fucking off, Bob.
-plonk-
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2007-03-24, 9:25 am |
| On Mar 24, 6:29 am, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bob" <tigerx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Double speak and back-peddle. You know exactly what I mean.
>
>
> I've already told you how many sq ft it will do, read it again.
>
>
> The company I own treats around fifty million sg ft per season.
>
> Now please be fucking off, Bob.
>
> -plonk-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before resorting to vulgarity, perhaps we should revisit the question
that was posed. As the question was stated, it appeared to me that
what the OP was saying was that he had two bags of fertilizer, that
were marked 24-4-4. To me, that indicates that they both have the
same amount of nutrients per pound. For one bag to provide 8500 sq ft
coverage and the other 15,000, there are only two possibilities:
1 - The bag marked 15000 coverage is 1.75 times as large as the other
2 - The bag marked 15000 is assuming it is applied at a proportionally
lower rate than the other when they say what area it will cover.
| |
| Steveo 2007-03-24, 9:25 am |
| trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:29 am, Steveo <moparho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Before resorting to vulgarity, perhaps we should revisit the question
> that was posed.
> As the question was stated, it appeared to me that
> what the OP was saying was that he had two bags of fertilizer, that
> were marked 24-4-4. To me, that indicates that they both have the
> same amount of nutrients per pound. For one bag to provide 8500 sq ft
> coverage and the other 15,000, there are only two possibilities:
>
> 1 - The bag marked 15000 coverage is 1.75 times as large as the other
>
The OP said they're both 50 pounders.
>
> 2 - The bag marked 15000 is assuming it is applied at a proportionally
> lower rate than the other when they say what area it will cover.
>
3 One is a weed and feed. There's less fertilizer in that 50 pounds of
product because of the herbicide content. Real simple.
Bob only attempts to pick apart peoples advice, (see the pre-emergent
thread) he never actually answers the question. That's why he's in my bozo
bin now.
| |
| Ralph Mowery 2007-03-24, 1:25 pm |
|
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message > Before resorting to vulgarity,
perhaps we should revisit the question
> that was posed. As the question was stated, it appeared to me that
> what the OP was saying was that he had two bags of fertilizer, that
> were marked 24-4-4. To me, that indicates that they both have the
> same amount of nutrients per pound. For one bag to provide 8500 sq ft
> coverage and the other 15,000, there are only two possibilities:
>
> 1 - The bag marked 15000 coverage is 1.75 times as large as the other
>
> 2 - The bag marked 15000 is assuming it is applied at a proportionally
> lower rate than the other when they say what area it will cover.
>
>
The bags weigh the same. I was guessing that the numbers were related to
the percentage of components in the bag. That would mean to me that the bag
that had the herbicide in it was putting a lot more nitrogen per sqft than
the one that did not have the herbicide in it. I did not care if the
herbicide did anything or not , just wanted the nitrogen on the grass, so I
applied it at the more spread out rate so the 8500 sqft bag was applied at
the 15000 sqft rate.
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2007-03-24, 5:25 pm |
| On Mar 24, 12:25 pm, "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message > Before resorting to vulgarity,
>
> perhaps we should revisit the question
>
>
>
>
> The bags weigh the same. I was guessing that the numbers were related to
> the percentage of components in the bag.
I don't think that's guessing. The numbers are the percentages of
nutrients. So, it sounds like
one bag has it being applied at a lower rate. That's the only way to
get higher coverage for the same size bag
with the same X-X-X percentages.
That would mean to me that the bag
> that had the herbicide in it was putting a lot more nitrogen per sqft than
> the one that did not have the herbicide in it. I did not care if the
> herbicide did anything or not , just wanted the nitrogen on the grass, so I
> applied it at the more spread out rate so the 8500 sqft bag was applied at
> the 15000 sqft rate.
| |
|
|
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1174770640.384293.312810@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 12:25 pm, "Ralph Mowery" <rmowery28...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
[snip][color=darkred]
>
> I don't think that's guessing. The numbers are the percentages of
> nutrients. So, it sounds like
> one bag has it being applied at a lower rate. That's the only way to
> get higher coverage for the same size bag
> with the same X-X-X percentages.
>
[snip]
>
Yes! Lower rate of application because they are different products. There
are pieces of information missing -- the way in which the nitrogen is
available, and what is used to determine the spread rate. Even though both
bags are 24% nitrogen, the OP didn't specify how much of that is slow
release and how much is water soluble, which has a big impact on the
nitrogen's availability to the turf.
Additionally, everyone so far has assumed that the nitrogen is the
determining factor in spread rate. It isn't for the weed-and-feed, in which
the pesticide is the determinant factor, and which has primarily water
soluble nitrogen to combat the immediate effects of the pesticide and very
little (if any) slow release nitrogen. (This also affects the timing of the
next application . . .) Regards --
|
|
|
|
|