AGGRAND 2010 Vegetable Productivity Study (fertilizer comparison)

8/2/2019 AGGRAND 2010 Vegetable Productivity Study (fertilizer comparison)

1/28

2010 Vegetable

Productivity StudyAGGRAND Natural Fertilizervs

Leading Inorganic Fertilizer

AGGRAND A Division of AMSOIL INC., Superior, Wis., USA


2/28

2 AGGRAND Vegetable Productivity Study

Table of ContentsAbstract / Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

Materials and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4

Tomato Plants from Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6

Sowing Corn and Beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8

Growth Plot Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

Fertilizer Application Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 10

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 14

Tomatoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 16

Green Beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 17

Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 18

Sweet Corn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 20

Harvest Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 22

Soil Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 23

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 25

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 27
http://www.naturalfertilizer.info/


3/28

AGGRAND Vegetable Productivity Study 3

Abstract / IntroductionAbstract: The dramatic increase in sustainable agricultural methods and associated use of naturalfertilizers has increased performance and yield inquiries from growers. Still, many homeowners andcommercial growers use water-soluble, salt-based inorganic products.

This study compared the performance of AGGRAND natural fertilizers with the performance of a leading

inorganic fertilizer when applied to garden vegetables in raised planting beds. Each bed included fourgarden vegetables: sweet corn, potatoes, tomatoes and bush green beans. Parameters evaluated includetotal weight for each vegetable and plot, average vegetable weight per plot, maximum vegetable length ordiameter and total number of vegetables per plot.

Plots fertilized with AGGRAND natural fertilizers outperformed the plots fertilized

with the leading inorganic fertilizer and the control plots where no fertilizer, only

water, was applied.

INTRODUCTION

The practice of sustainable agriculture, or what is commonly known as organic farming and animalhusbandry, evolved from work performed by researchers Dr. William Albrecht of the University of Missouri,

Rudolf Steiner in Germany and Sir Albert Howard in England during the first half of the 20th century.The term organic as it relates to agriculture was originated during the same period in England by LordNorthbourne, agriculturalist, as an abbreviated description of farming by recognizing a concept known asdynamic-living-organic-whole. This statement expresses the concept of using natural fertilizers and soilamendments to maintain and enhance soil fertility while rejecting the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers andpesticides; all while being supported by livestock production (Thilmany, 2006). The implementation of theseconcepts assisted in the establishment of the Soil and Health Foundation by publisher J.I. Rodale in 1947,

eventually known as the Rodale Institute. The Rodale Institute is a leading advocate for organic andsustainable agriculture and operates a 333-acre organic farm near Kutztown, Pa. (The Rodale Institute, 2010)

In recent years, The Rodale Institutes vision has caught the interest of the American consumer andfarmer alike. In 1990, sales of organically grown food and beverages totaled $1 billion and increased to$20 billion in 2007, with an anticipated annual growth rate of 18 percent from 2008 to 2010 (Organic Trade

Institute, 2010). However, organic, natural, or sustainable agricultural growing systems do not necessarilyyield certified organic crops or produce.

In addition to the ecological definition of certified organic crops and produce discussed here, there alsoexists the legal definition, uniform standards, record keeping, compliant/non-compliant materials,certification processes and many other requirements established by the National Organic Program underthe authority of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2010). The ecological definition oforganic farming is used in this paper.

The plant growth materials used in this study include: AGGRAND Natural Fertilizer (4-3-3), AGGRANDKelp and Sulfate of Potash (0-0-8), AGGRAND Natural Bonemeal (0-12-0) and AGGRAND Liquid Lime;along with a leading inorganic salt-based product (24-8-16) commonly used in the consumer market.

The formulas of AGGRAND natural fertilizers consist of natural materials such as kelp, emulsified fish, lime,fulvic acid, humic acid and sulfate of potash. These materials are recognized as part of an organic croppingsystem. They are designed to provide necessary nutrients for the plant to grow and thrive, and to build thesoil by enhancing microbial growth, thus increasing the sustainability of the system. The inorganic salt-based fertilizer is designed to quickly and easily supply nutrients to the plant for optimum growth and yield(Havlin, et al 2005).

The objective of this research was to determine yield results, weight and maximum length or diameter ofgarden vegetables fertilized with AGGRAND fertilizers according to AGGRAND recommendations andgarden vegetables fertilized with a leading inorganic fertilizer according to the manufacturers recommendations.


4/28


Establishing Test PlotsOn-site planting beds were established at the AGGRAND facility in order to produce credible outdoor

growth data.

In April 2010, construction began on three 20-foot by 20-foot planting beds in the open space immediately

to the south of the AGGRAND facility. Each planting bed was constructed with treated timbers, stackedthree high, lined with landscape fabric and filled with blended garden soil from Monarch Paving of

Superior, Wis. The perimeter of the planting beds was surrounded by an 8-foot fence to deter animals,

especially deer, from eating the plants. In addition, a wind screen made of landscape fabric was

established on the east and north fence lines to minimize the effects of the cold winds from Lake Superior.

The planters were filled with soil and leveled. The soil was sampled on April 20. The growth plots were

completed on May 4, 2010. (See Figures 2 and 3)

Materials and Methods

Figure 2: Planters undergoing construction

Figure 1: Plot site plan

Figure 3: Completed growth plot test area


5/28


Soil SamplingThe following soil sampling procedure was followed for each planting bed to characterize each growth

plots soil. The soil depth was 18 inches and homogenous throughout the planter. Using a soil sampling

probe, soil samples were obtained from the top six inches of the planting bed at nine evenly spaced points

in the area. (See Figure 4)

All soil samples were analyzed at Midwest Laboratories in Omaha, Neb., and were evaluated for percent

organic matter, available phosphorus (weak and strong Bray), exchangeable potassium, hydrogen,

magnesium and calcium, pH, buffer index, cation exchange capacity (CEC), percent base saturation of

cation elements, carryover nitrogen as nitrate, micronutrient analysis of sulfur, manganese, boron, zinc,

iron and copper, evaluation of excess lime and soluble salts. (See Tables 16 and 17 for a summary of all

soil analyses obtained during this study)

Planting PlanA growth plot sowing plan was established to use the area most efficiently while providing ample room for

the vegetables to grow and develop, leaving enough room to water, fertilize and weed the plots. A two-foot

walking path was established between the vegetable types. (See Figure 5)

Figure 4: Growth plot soil sampling

Figure 5: Growth plot planting plan


6/28


Popular hybrid varieties of vegetables were chosen for this study, with seeds established in Wisconsin or

Minnesota that would produce good yields in cooler climates. The following seed and seed potatoes were planted:

Potatoes: Variety: 04671, Superiorfrom Jung Seed, Co. of Randolph, Wis.

Green Beans: Variety: 01020N, Blue Lake 274from Jung Seed, Co. of Randolph, Wis.

Sweet Corn: Variety: 01805N, Butter & Sugarfrom Jung Seed, Co. of Randolph, Wis.

Tomatoes:

Variety: 00426A, Lot 10-426-A, Legend(Determinate) from Jung Seed, Co. of Randolph, Wis.

Variety: Celebrityplants from Dans Feed Bin of Superior, Wis. Plants were approximately

8 inches to 10 inches in height.

Tomato Plants from Seed

On April 5, Legend tomato seeds were planted in five flats of 3.5-inch by 3.5-inch pots, for a total of 90

plants. The growing medium was Pro-Mix (PGX) Professional potting soil Part #0463 from Quakertown,

Pa., topped with Country Cottage Sphagnum Peat Moss from Lancaster, Pa. Seeds were planted

approximately 0.5 inches under the surface of the soil. Water was added to the flats by capillary action

until the planting media was moist. The flats were placed into the growth area with heating mats under the

flats. Fluorescent growth lamps illuminated a plastic drape over the growing area to maintain a

temperature of 27.2C (81F) See Figure 6

Heat Mats: (2) 20.75 inches wide x 48 inches long from Hydrofarm, Petaluma, Calif.

Nine-Sylvania 40W GRO-LUX F40 GRO

Seven-VitaLite 40W DuroLite

Light Duration: 14 hours per day

Temperature = 27.2C (81F) as measured by a Taylor analog dial thermometer

Temperature and soil moisture checked every day

Initial emergence of the tomato plants occurred April 9, with a germination rate of 85.6 percent by April 12.

An additional six seeds were planted the next day to replace the non-germinated seeds.

AGGRAND personnel prepared to fertilize the plants that had developed at least two true leaves 25

milliliters (mL) of diluted fertilizer via graduated cylinder. The plants were separated, measured for length

and tagged for a specific fertilizer treatment with either AGGRAND Natural Fertilizer (NOF, Lot 852-033),leading chemical fertilizer or none (control) with 28 plants in each category.

The formulation used for the AGGRAND seedling fertilization was 5 mL of Natural Fertilizer to 1,000 mL of

distilled water, mixed well and placed into a laboratory squeeze bottle. Using a 25 mL graduated cylinder,

25 mL of the solution was added to each plant.

The chemical fertilizer called for 1 gram of powdered material to 946 mL of distilled water, mixed

thoroughly. Each plant designated to receive inorganic fertilization received 25 mL of this solution. The

fertilization and measuring process was repeated on May 3. As the plants increased in height the growth

lamps were raised accordingly.

Tomato Plants from Seed

Figure 6: Newly-planted tomato seeds
http://www.naturalfertilizer.info/http://www.naturalfertilizer.info/http://www.naturalfertilizer.info/


7/28


On May 10, the heat mats were turned off in the growth chamber to begin the hardening process.

The temperature was reduced from 27.2C (81F) to 23C (73.4F) with the soil temperature

ranging from 20.5C (68.9F) to 22.2C (72F). During the afternoon of May 17, the tomato plants were

placed on a pallet and placed outdoors in a shaded area for a couple of hours to harden.

This process was repeated on May 18, May 20 and May 21 for periods of 3.5 hours, 4 hours and

8.25 hours, respectively.

The best 24 tomato plants for each plot were selected and sorted on May 24. Because of their long

stems, the plants were planted into holes one-foot deep. Wire supports were placed around each

plant. Ambient temperature was approximately 60F and sky was overcast, with fog. During the

previous evening 0.25 inches of rain fell. Each plant was fertilized with an AGGRAND fertilizer solution

of 180 mL of Natural Organic Fertilizer (NOF, 4-3-3) (measured with a 250 mL graduated cylinder), 120 mL

of Natural Liquid Bonemeal (NBM, 0-12-0) (measured with a 250 mL graduated cylinder) and 60 mL of

Kelp and Sulfate of Potash (NKP, 0-0-8) (measured with a 100 mL graduated cylinder) into 6,000 mL

of tap water. The solution was mixed thoroughly and 1,000 mL of solution (measured with a 1,000 mL

graduated cylinder) was applied to the base of each plant (AMSOIL, 2010). The same procedure

occurred for the control plants using 1,000 mL of tap water for each plant. This fertilization procedure

was also followed for the chemical fertilizer with a formula of 17.96 grams of powdered fertilizer

(weighed using an AND FX3000i digital balance, serial number 15610355) and 6,000 mL of tap wateraccording to the manufacturers instructions.

The tomato plants were evaluated on May 28 to determine the effects of transplanting into the growth

plots. Eight AGGRAND plants were dead or close to death, all control plants were alive and viable for

continued growth and seven of the chemically fertilized plants were dead. All tomato plants were

watered with 1,000 mL of tap water. On June 1, all of the tomato plants appeared to be stressed and

had soft, wet, succulent tissue. The three best-performing Legend plants of

each fertilizer regime were kept and 36 Celebrity tomato plants were

purchased from Dans Feed Bin, Superior, Wis. Each growth plot received

12 plants, approximately 8 to 10 inches tall. Each plant was watered with

1,000 mL tap water after planting. On June 2, all tomato plants were

fertilized with 1,000 mL of solution as described above.

Potatoes: Preparation and PlantingSeed potatoes arrived during the week of April 25 from Jung Seed

Company. On May 4, each seed potato was cut in half for a total of 126

pieces that contained several eyes. The cut seed potatoes were stored

in a dark, cool, dry area on trays.

On May 18, the seed potatoes were planted eight inches deep and covered

with with three inches of soil. Four rows of seven plants were planted in each

timber box. (See Table 1 for detailed planting data.) Seed potatoes were

fertilized with an AGGRAND solution of 180 mL of Natural Organic Fertilizer

(measured with a 250 mL graduated cylinder), 120 mL of Natural LiquidBonemeal (measured with a 250 mL graduated cylinder) and 60 mL of Kelp

and Sulfate of Potash (measured with a 100 mL graduated cylinder) into

6,000 mL of tap water. The solution was mixed thoroughly and 1,000 mL of

solution (measured with a 1,000 mL graduated cylinder) was applied to the

base of each plant. (AMSOIL, 2010) The control plants received only 1,000

mL of tap water per plant. The same fertilization procedure was followed for

the chemical fertilizer with a formula of 17.96 grams of powdered fertilizer

(weighed using an AND FX3000i digital balance, serial number 15610355)

and 6,000 mL of tap water. (See Figures 7 and 8)

Figure 7: Measuring depth of hole for potatoes

Figure 8: Method of fertilization for potato plots


8/28


Sweet corn and bush beans were sowed May 25. Four rows of each plant per fertilizer type were

established. Seed was placed about one inch beneath the soil surface, covered and firmly packed by

hand. (See Table 1 for planting specifics and Figures 9 and 10 below:)

Each row of the AGGRAND plot was fertilized with a solution of 180 mL of Natural Fertilizer (measured

with a 250 mL graduated cylinder), 120 mL of Natural Liquid Bonemeal (measured with a 250 mL

graduated cylinder) and 60 mL of Kelp and Sulfate of Potash (measured with a 100 mL graduated cylinder)

and 6,000 mL of tap water. The solution was mixed thoroughly and each row of corn and beans was

fertilized using a sprinkler can to evenly distribute the solution along the length of the row (AMSOIL, 2010).

The control plants received 6,000 mL of tap water per row. The same fertilization procedure was followed

for the chemical fertilizer with a formula of 17.96 grams of powdered fertilizer (weighed using an AND

FX3000i digital balance, serial number 15610355) and 6,000 mL of tap water. (See Figures 11 and 12

below)

Sowing Corn and Beans

Figure 9: Corn seed spacing

Figure 11: Row fertilization technique

Figure 10: Bean seed spacing

Figure 12: Fertilizing with leading inorganic
http://www.naturalfertilizer.info/http://www.naturalfertilizer.info/


9/28


Growth Plot MaintenanceBy June 2 all plots were seeded, and all tomato plants were in place according to Table 1.

Table 1: Planting summary

Growth Plot Maintenance

After all plants and seeds were established, precipitation, routine weeding, cultivating and watering

were monitored and are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Plot maintenance summary

Crop Row Spacing

(ft)

Seed/Plant

Spacing (in)

Seeds or Plants

per Row

Seeds/Plants

per Plot

Total Seeds/

Plants

Corn 2 6 17 64 192

Beans 2 4 25 100 300

Tomatoes 2 24 4 15 45

Potatoes 2 15 7 28 84

Date Rain (in) Watering (mL) Comments

23-May 0.2525-May Trace

28-May 6000/1000 Each row of corn, beans, potatoes. 1000 mL ea tomato plant

28-May 3 potatoes emerged in AGGRAND Plot

1-Jun Corn and beans germinated in all plots

2-Jun 6000 Each row of corn, beans, potatoes. Fertilized tomato plants

4-Jun 0.75

5-Jun 0.50

7-Jun Weeded and cultivated all plots

8-Jun 1.00

13-June 1.60

18-Jun the

21-Jun 0.85

22-Jun Hilled potatoes, all plots

24-Jun 0.20 Hail storm

25-Jun 1.75

3-Jul 0.40

10-Jul Trace

14-Jul 0.40

15-Jul Weeded and cultivated all plots

24-Jul 0.13

27-Jul 1.75

31-Jul 1.00

7-Aug 2.70

10-Aug 0.50

14-Aug 0.30

18-Aug 1.10

20-Aug 1.10 Removed excess blooms and pruned tomato plants

31-Aug 0.13

2-Sep 0.30

6-Sep 0.85

17-Sep 0.40

23-Sep 1.40


10/28


Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 summarize fertilizer applications and general formulas used for each plot. Percent

indicates the amount of fertilizer to water as specified in tables 7, 8 and 9. Date of application shown in red.

Fertilizer Application Tables

Crop AGGRAND Leading Chemical Control

Potato 5/183% NOF2% NBM

1% NKP

5/180.3% solution

5/18Water only

Tomato 6/2

3% NOF2% NBM

1% NKP

6/2

0.3% solution

6/2

Water only

Beans 5/25

3% NOF2% NBM

1% NKP

5/25

0.3% solution

5/25

Water only

Corn 5/25

3% NOF2% NBM1% NKP

5/25

0.3% solution

5/25

Water only


Potato 6/18

3% NOF1% NLL @ 2 weeks

6/18

0.3% solution@ 2 weeks

6/18

Water only

Tomato 7/12% NOF

2% NBM @ 1st bloom

6/180.3% solution

@ 2 weeks

6/18Water only

Beans 7/13One week before bloom2% NOF 2% NKP

6/180.3% solution@ 2 weeks

6/18Water only

Corn 6/183% NOF

2% NBM 1%NKP @ 2 weeks

6/180.3% solution

@ 2 weeks

6/18Water only


Potato 7/2

3% NOF1% NLL @ 4 weeks

7/2


7/2

Water only

Tomato 7/212% NOF 2% NLL

@ full bloom

7/20.3% solution

@ 4 weeks

7/2Water only

Beans 8/2

One week before 2nd bloom2% NOF

2% NKP

7/2


7/2

Water only

Corn 7/2

3% NOF2% NBM

1% NKP @ 4 weeks

7/2


7/2

Water only

Table 3: Planting soiling application

Table 4: Second application foliar feeding

Table 5: Third application foliar feeding


11/28



Potato 7/163% NOF

1% NLL @ 6 weeks

7/160.3% solution @ 6 weeks

7/16Water only

Tomato 7/292% NKP during fruit fill

7/160.3% solution @ 6 weeks

7/16Water only

Beans None 7/16

0.3% solution @ 6 weeks

7/16

Water only

Corn 7/16

3% NOF2% NBM

1% NKP @ 6 weeks

7/16


7/16

Water only

Vegetable Stage Water (mL) NOF(1)

(mL) NBM(2)

(mL) NKP(3)

(mL) NLL(4)

(mL) Amount/row

or plant

Potatoes Planting 5640 180 120 60 1,000 mL/ plant

Tomatoes Planting 5640 180 120 60 1,000 mL/ plant

Beans Planting 5640 180 120 60 6,000 mL/row

Corn Planting 5640 180 120 60 6,000 mL/row

Potatoes at 2 weeks 5760 180 60 6,000 mL/row

Tomatoes at 1st Bloom 5760 120 120 1,000 mL/plant

Beans one week before

1st bloom

5760 120 120 6,000 mL/row

Corn at 2 weeks 5640 180 120 60 6,000 mL/row


Tomatoes at full Bloom 5700 180 120 1,000 mL/plant


2nd bloom

5760 120 120 6,000 mL/row



Tomatoes during fruit fill 5880 120 1,000 mL/plant



3rd bloom

None

Table 6: Fourth application foliar feeding

Table 7: AGGRAND fertilizer application timing and formulations

For beans, corn and potatoes, 6,000 mL of chemical fertilizer mix were applied with a watering can per

row. For tomatoes, 1,000 mL (measured with a 1,000 mL graduated cylinder) was applied per plant.

Control applications followed the same timing and volume as the chemical fertilizer and were treated with

tap water through the growing season. Several AGGRAND fertilizer applications did not follow the

prescribed schedule exactly because of frequent rains. (Table 2) The chemical fertilizer was applied at

regular two-week intervals after the initial planting and establishment of the plants. Tables 7, 8 and 9

summarize the fertilizer formulations employed on the growth plots.

(1) AGGRAND Natural Organic Fertilizer (4-3-3)

(2) AGGRAND Natural Bonemeal (0-12-0)

(3) AGGRAND Natural Kelp and Sulfate of Potash (0-0-8)

(4) AGGRAND Natural Liquid Lime


12/28


Vegetable Stage Water (mL) Fertilizer (g) Amount/row or plant

Potatoes at planting 6,000 17.96 1,000 mL/ plant

Tomatoes at planting 6,000 17.96 1,000 mL/ plant

Beans at planting 6,000 17.96 6,000 mL/rowCorn at planting 6,000 17.96 6,000 mL/row

Potatoes at 2 weeks 6,000 17.96 6,000 mL/row

Tomatoes at 2 weeks 6,000 17.96 1,000 mL/plant

Beans at 2 weeks 6,000 17.96 6,000 mL/row

Corn at 2 weeks 6,000 17.96 6,000 mL/row









Vegetable Stage Water (mL) Fertilizer Amount/row or plant

Potatoes at planting 6,000 none 1,000 mL/ plant

Tomatoes at planting 6,000 none 1,000 mL/ plant

Beans at planting 6,000 none 6,000 mL/row

Corn at planting 6,000 none 6,000 mL/row

Potatoes at 2 weeks 6,000 none 6,000 mL/row

Tomatoes at 2 weeks 6,000 none 1,000 mL/plant

Beans at 2 weeks 6,000 none 6,000 mL/row

Corn at 2 weeks 6,000 none 6,000 mL/row









Table 8: Leading chemical fertilizer application timing and formulations

Table 9: Control plot fertilizer application timing and formulations


13/28


During the late afternoon of June 24, a heavy thunderstorm produced hail and damaged many of the

plants in the growth plots. Fortunately, the vegetables were not flowering at this time and long-term

damage was held to a minimum. See Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16.

On October 7, after all crops had been

harvested and prior to tilling each planting

bed, soil samples were taken from each crop

area in each bed. Samples from nine evenly

spaced points were obtained (Figure 17),

mixed and forwarded to Midwest Laboratories

for analysis to determine percent organic

matter; available phosphorus (weak andstrong Bray); exchangeable potassium,

hydrogen, magnesium and calcium; pH; buffer

index; cation exchange capacity (CEC);

percent base saturation of cation elements;

carryover nitrogen as nitrate; micronutrient

analysis of sulfur, manganese, boron, zinc,

iron and copper; and evaluation of excess lime

and soluble salts. A total of 12 post-harvest

samples were tested; all soil samples are

summarized in Tables 16 and 17.

Figure 13: Damaged sweet corn

Figure 15: Damaged green bean plants

Figure 14: Damaged tomato plant

Figure 16: Damaged potato plants

Figure 17: Fall 2010 soil sampling


14/28


Tomatoes

Evaluation of tomato performance not only included the amount and size of fruit formed, but also plant growth

rate and vigor of the Legend plants grown from seed. As already stated, initial emergence of the tomato plants

occurred on April 9 and on April 12, the germination percentage was determined to be 85.6 percent.

On April 19, plants were measured for height and separated into three groups of 29 destined for the threefertilizer treatments. This data was recorded and averaged. Fertilizer was applied on April 19, and on May 3,

the height of each plant was re-measured with the data being averaged for each fertilizer type. Figure 18

summarizes seedling height per fertilizer.

The image in Figure 19 was taken on May 10 to demonstrate the relative height and vigor of the tomato

plants with differing fertilization systems. The AGGRAND-treated plants appear taller than both the controland chemically fertilized plants, while the AGGRAND and chemically fertilized plants have more abundant

and greener foliage than the control plants.

Results and Discussion

Figure 18: Tomato start growth

Figure 19: Tomato plants prior to being transplanted


15/28


Tomato seedlings were transplanted the last week of May because of the potential for frost and to provide

ample time to acclimate to outdoor growing conditions. As seen in Figure 19, the plants were of adequate

size to be planted in the garden plots; however, the delay in transplanting caused the plants to become

spindly, with the plant tissue becoming soft and succulent. Figure 20 shows the tomato plants during the

hardening process and the weakness of the plant stems.

After planting, the majority of the starts showed substantial stress, died or were dying. Each plot retainedthree Legend tomato plants and each had 12 Celebrity tomato plants added. All 15 plants in each growth

plot survived and produced fruit.

Over the growing season, the AGGRAND-fertilized plants showed more vigor and were larger overall than

the chemically fertilized or control tomatoes. On July 13, plant height and relative vigor were ranked on a

one to five scale where five was the best and zero was a dead plant. AGGRAND Fertilizer Specialist

Walter Sandbeck measured vigor by evaluating leaf color (intensity of green), leaf number, height,

flowering, plant firmness and stem diameter. The AGGRAND plants, even though suffering from hail

damage, were ranked with vigor values of five and ranged from 12 inches to 23 inches in height. All plants

were blooming and several were in post-bloom stage. The chemically fertilized plants were given a vigor

rank of four, with one plant having a rating of three. The plants had more maturity variation than the

AGGRAND plants, with some in pre-bloom stage and three with small fruit emerging. Height of these

plants ranged from 12 inches to 20 inches. Control plants were visually less appealing than AGGRAND orthe chemically fertilized plants. Overall vigor was ranked between three and four, with half of the plants in

pre-bloom stage and the remaining in bloom. Two control plants had one 0.375 inch and one 0.675 inch

tomato per plant. Plant height ranged from 10 inches to 20 inches.

On August 25, the first tomatoes were harvested. The following criteria were developed to evaluate the

performance of each plot: 1) Tomatoes should be orange or red on the vine at the time of harvest. 2) Fruit

on the ground will be counted and measured, even when green. 3) Will harvest all, including green fruit,

when a freeze is imminent. 4) Determine number, weight and maximum diameter for each tomato per plot.

5) Determine degrees Brix of one tomato from each plot per picking day.

Figure 20: Tomato plants during the hardening process


16/28


Each tomato was weighed using an AND FX3000i digital

balance, serial #15610355, and the maximum diameter

was measured with a Mitutoyo Corporation Digimatic

Caliper, Model CD-6 CSX, Serial #07435188. Thediameter was measured perpendicular to the axis of the

stem and center core of the fruit. See Figure 22.

Tomatoes fertilized with the AGGRAND fertilization system

produced fruit in greater numbers which equated to more

total weight when compared to plants that were fertilized

with the chemical product. As expected, the control plants

fared the worst as far as quantity, but produced a slightly

larger and heavier tomato. Average sugar content as

measured by degrees Brix was slightly lower for the

AGGRAND-treated tomatoes when compared to tomatoes

grown in the other plots. Differences in quality are noticed

when at least 2 to 4 degrees Brix between fruit samples are

taste-tested (International Ag Labs, 2010).

TomatoesFigure 21: Tomatoes at various ripening stages

Figure 22: Measuring maximum tomato diameter

Fertilizer TotalNumber

TotalWeight (g)

TotalWeight

(lbs)

Ave.Brix

Ave.Weight

(g)

Ave.Diameter

(mm)

AGGRAND 792 128,914.69 284.00 5.3 162.77 71.59

Chemical 630 105,662.33 232.70 5.5 167.72 71.63

Control 404 71,340.12 157.10 5.4 176.58 72.47

Table 11: Final tomato results


17/28


On June 1, most of the sowed bean seeds had germinated; some seeds were washed away or moved

within the planting row due to heavy rains. Total germination of the AGGRAND plot was 83 percent;

total germination for both the chemical fertilizer and control plots was 80 percent.

On July 13, the green bean plants were measured and relative vigor rankings were determined on a one to

five scale where five was the best and zero was a dead plant. The AGGRAND-fertilized plants, showed

some signs of hail damage, but the majority of them (over 60 percent) were given a rank of five, were

flowering and were 8 inches to 12 inches tall. The remainder of the plants ranked from one to four, with the

majority ranking three to four with dark green foliage and little or no pest damage. The plants fertilized with

the leading chemical product were healthy with little pest damage. Eighty percent received a vigor ranking

of four, with many of the plants flowering. Average height was six inches to eight inches, and the foliage

was lighter green than the AGGRAND-fertilized plot. There were few plants ranked three and two, but most

plants that were not ranked a four were ranked as a small plant (one). Control plants were visually less

appealing than the AGGRAND or the chemically fertilized plants. The foliage was lighter green; over 88

percent of the plants were given a vigor ranking of three; and a number of plants were blooming. All plots

were producing 0.5-inch to one-inch beans on July 20. See Figure 23.

Commenced harvest on July 26 by picking beans that were at least four inches long. Attempted to harvest

every Monday, Wednesday and Friday when weather conditions were favorable. On August 30, the

harvesting was deemed completed when the plants yielded very few fruit and were degrading. See Figure 24.

Fertilizer Total

Number

Total

Weight (g)

Total

Weight(lbs)

Ave.

Brix

Ave.

Weight(g)

Ave.

Diameter(mm)

AGGRAND 4196 14,666.42 32.33 5.4 3.50 71.59

Chemical 3766 12,653.17 27.90 5.6 3.36 71.63

Control 3506 11,077.96 24.42 5.7 3.16 72.47

Table 12: Final green bean results

Green Beans

Figure 23: Green bean plant comparison

AGGRAND plot Chemical fertilizer plot

Figure 24: Green bean harvest

The AGGRAND ferilized plot produced

more, larger, heavier beans than the other

growth plots. Due to the overall high fertility

of the soil, the yields were very good for all

plots. Average sugar content, as measured

by percent Brix, was slightly lower for

AGGRAND when compared to the other

growth plots; this difference, however,

would not be discernable by taste.


18/28


PotatoesAs previously stated, potatoes were planted on May 18, before all other crops. Growth rate and plant vigor

comparisons were conducted when the plants started to emerge around June 1. Rapid plant growth

occurred from June 1 to June 6. Figure 25 compares plant development per fertilizer/growth plot.

Over the growing season, the AGGRAND potatoes showed more vigor and were larger overall than the

chemically fertilized or control plants. On July 13 the plants were measured and relative vigor rankings

were determined on a one to five scale where five was the best and zero was a dead plant. Again,

AGGRAND plants, even though showing some signs of hail damage, were given a ranking of five and

were approximately 24 inches tall. Six plants were blooming. The chemically fertilized plants were given a

vigor ranking of four. Fifty percent of them were blooming and they were between 12 inches and 18 inches

tall. Control plants were visually less vigorous than the AGGRAND or the chemically fertilized plants.

Overall vigor was ranked at three, with 11 out of the 28 plants blooming. Plant height ranged from 10

inches to 16 inches. Plant height and vigor had less variation within each plot, but showed distinct

difference from plot to plot. Due to the excess moisture, as the growing season progressed, the plant

leaves turned a brownish green and curled. By the end of August, dieback was obvious in all plots, but the

AGGRAND-fertilized potato plants produced new, prolific shoots and leaves.

Figure 25: Potato plant comparison


19/28


On September 30, harvest was conducted when the control and chemically fertilized plants had essentially died back.

See Figure 26.

Yield comparison was determined by weighing each potato using an AND FX3000i digital balance, serial #15610355

and measuring their maximum length (See Figure 27). Sugar content was determined with an Atago ATC-1E Hand

Refractometer that measured degrees Brix 0 to 32. See the yield summary in Table 13.

Figure 26: Potato harvest

Figure 27: Measuring maximum potato length

Figure 28

Table 13: Final potato results

AGGRAND Control Chemical Fertilizer

Fertilizer TotalNumber

TotalWeight (g)

TotalWeight

(lbs)

AveBrix

AveWeight

(g)

AveLength

(cm)

AGGRAND 228 25,083.52 55.25 5.2 110.02 6.69

Chemical 169 21,822.27 48.07 5.2 129.13 6.94Control 137 17,840.69 39.30 4.0 130.22 7.32

Potato plots fertilized with the AGGRAND fertilization system produced

greater numbers and naturally equated to more total weight when

compared to the plots fertilized with the chemical product. As

expected, the control plants fared the worst as far as quantity, but

produced a slightly larger and heavier potato. Average sugar content

as measured by degrees Brix was slightly lower for the control when

compared to the other growth plots, but this difference would not be

discernable by taste. AGGRAND and control programs yielded

potatoes with less scabbing. See Figure 28.


20/28


Sweet CornOn June 1, most of the sowed corn seeds had germinated; however, heavy rains forced some to move

within the planting row and required they be reset at the proper depth and spacing. Total germination of

the AGGRAND plot was 100 percent; one seed failed to germinate in the chemical fertilizer plot and three

seeds failed to germinate in the control plot.

On July 13, the corn plants were measured and relative vigor rankings were determined on a one to five

scale where five was the best and zero was a dead plant. All AGGRAND-fertilized plants were given a

ranking of five and ranged from 10 inches to 28 inches tall. The plants fertilized with the leading chemical

product were healthy, with 100 percent receiving a vigor ranking of four, ranging from 10 inches to 20

inches tall and a few were multi-stemmed. The foliage was lighter green than the AGGRAND-fertilized

plants. Control plants were noticeably light green in color when compared to the AGGRAND or the

chemically fertilized plants. Overall vigor was given a ranking of three with the plants ranging in height

from 8 inches to 18 inchesnoticeably shorter than the AGGRAND and chemically fertilized corn.

Additional observations were conducted regarding the formation of tassels and corn cobs throughout the

growing season. On July 20, the AGGRAND corn plants were the only producers of tassels; 31 percent of

the plants were at this stage of development. Investigation on August 3 revealed that 11 AGGRAND corn

plants were forming cobs, while one chemically fertilized plant was observed at this state, and no control

plants were forming distinct cobs at this time. The AGGRAND-fertilized corn was much more developedthan the other plots.

Figure 29: Ear size comparison

Harvest was conducted on September 8 to avoid

the corn becoming overdeveloped and starchy.

The cob size was monitored carefully to provide

the best-tasting product possible.

Figure 30: Corn harvest


21/28


Parameters measured include cob weight using an AND FX3000i digital balance, serial #15610355, cob

length, total weight per row, total weight and number per fertilizer type along with average kernel count of

the five largest cobs from each row, and average cob length and weight. Maximum cob length was

determined by using the apparatus in Figure 31.Corn fertilized with the AGGRAND fertilization system

produced a greater number of total and edible ears

that had a greater number of kernels than the

chemically fertilized plants. Average ear length and

weight were also greater for the AGGRAND plot.

Figure 29 shows the ear size comparison from row 1

(south) of each plot. Note that the AGGRAND plot had

18 ears full of kernels, while the chemical and control

plots had nine and eight full cobs, respectively. The

best-quality ears are shown in Figure 30. As expected,

the control plants with no fertilizer being added fared

the worst as far as quantity and quality.

The control corn stalks were brittle and easily broken,

while the AGGRAND stalks were the strongest. Thechemically fertilized corn had the only smut on the

ears (3); one small smut spot on an AGGRAND stalk

was evident. Row four (north) of all growth plots had a

few ear worms

Figure 32 Figure 33

Figure 31: Measuring maximum corn cob length

Table 14

*** Edible Ears are greater than 50 grams in weight and may or may not be completely filled with kernels

Table 15

Plot Total Ears Total Wt. (g) Total Wt. (lbs) Ave. Ear Wt. (g) Ave. Ear Length (cm) Ave Length (cm)

AGGRAND 101 14887.97 32.79 147.41 15.95 6.69

LeadingChemical

97 10562.29 23.26 108.89 15.10 6.94

Control 57 5803.37 12.78 101.81 14.61 7.32

Plot Edible Ear

Wt. (lbs.)

Ave. Edible

Ear Wt. (g)

Ave. Edible Ear

length (cm)

Ave. # Kernels Ave. Ear Length

(cm)

Ave Length (cm)

AGGRAND 31.40 200.80 17.56 526 15.95 6.69

Leading

Chemical

21.75 161.84 17.15 476 15.10 6.94

Control 12.19 134.98 16.30 429 14.61 7.32


22/28


See Figures 34 and 35 for harvest summary for all crops and fertilizer systems.

Figure 34: Yield comparison by number

Figure 35: Yield comparison by number

Harvest Summary


23/28


As previously mentioned, soil sampling and analysis was conducted after the soil was incorporated into

the planters and after harvest. Nine samples of each plot were taken in the spring, and nine samples per

crop per planter were obtained in the fall after harvest. See Figures 36 and 37.

Soil Analysis

Figure 36: Soil analysis probe/bucket Figure 37: Soil sample, 6 inches deep

Table 16: Soil analysis aummary

Plot Date OM P1 P2 K Mg Ca Na Soil BufferIndex

CEC ppm lb/a total lb/a

AGGRAND 4/27 8.1 9 36 106 158 3228 45 7.8 16.7 40 72 72

Tomatoes 10/16 8.2 51 106 219 258 3127 20 7.6 18.4 11 20 20

Potatoes 10/16 8.0 23 54 136 159 2930 25 7.8 16.4 17 31 31

Beans 10/16 8.4 32 77 197 166 3064 19 7.8 17.3 20 36 36

Corn 10/16 7.9 40 105 231 233 3378 31 8.0 19.6 14 25 25

Control 4/27 7.5 9 27 90 151 3235 45 7.8 17.9 40 72 72

Tomatoes 10/16 8.4 10 27 68 126 3192 20 8.0 17.3 5 9 9

Potatoes 10/16 8.6 14 32 66 121 3173 20 8.2 17.1 7 13 13

Beans 10/16 8.2 14 28 99 142 3377 22 8.1 18.4 14 25 25

Corn 10/16 8.5 10 27 67 109 2952 17 8.2 15.9 5 9 9

Chemical 4/27 7.1 9 28 108 146 3003 49 7.9 16.7 30 54 54

Tomatoes 10/16 7.6 13 27 56 119 2830 18 8.0 15.4 5 9 9

Potatoes 10/16 7.6 12 31 91 137 3285 19 8.0 17.9 8 14 14

Beans 10/16 7.5 14 31 95 126 2911 19 8.0 15.9 9 16 16

Corn 10/16 7.9 15 27 65 122 3092 22 8.0 16.7 6 11 11

Phosphorus Exchangeable Cations (ppm) pH Nitrate - N


24/28


Table 17: Soil analysis summary

With the addition of AGGRAND fertilizers, soil fertility was maintained in spite of the plants removing

the nutrients throughout the growing season and in some cases it improved over the growing months

compared to the chemically fertilized and control plots. Most notable were the increases in the levels of

phosphorus, potassium and magnesium. The dramatic increase in phosphorus could be attributed to

the addition of the AGGRAND fertilizers, while the other plots saw only a marginal increase. These

marginal increases could be due to seasonal effects of increased biological activity. In all plots, some

micronutrient, nitrate levels and soluble salts decreased from the spring to the fall harvest. The

reduction could be attributed to plant uptake and to nutrient leaching associated with watering and rain

movement through the soil layer.

Plot Date K Mg Ca H Na S Zn Mn Fe Cu B mmhos/cm Rate

AGGRAND 4/27 1.7 7.3 89.7 0.0 1.3 254 1.2 2 134 1.1 1.6 L 0.9 L

Tomatoes 10/16 3.1 11.7 84.7 0.0 0.5 38 1.8 2 76 0.9 0.7 L 0.4 LPotatoes 10/16 2.1 8.1 89.1 0.0 0.7 68 1.0 1 80 0.6 0.8 L 0.6 L

Beans 10/16 2.9 8.0 88.6 0.0 0.5 38 0.9 1 78 0.7 0.8 L 0.5 L

Corn 10/16 3.0 9.9 86.4 0.0 0.7 68 1.2 1 86 0.9 0.8 L 0.5 L

Control 4/27 1.3 7.0 90.6 0.0 1.1 268 1.1 2 123 1 1.5 L 0.9 L

Tomatoes 10/16 1 6.1 92.4 0.0 0.5 64 0.8 1 66 0.7 0.8 L 0.5 L

Potatoes 10/16 1 5.9 92.6 0.0 0.5 53 0.6 1 62 0.7 0.8 L 0.5 L

Beans 10/16 1.4 6.4 91.7 0.0 0.5 35 0.6 2 75 0.8 0.9 L 0.3 L

Corn 10/16 1.1 5.7 92.7 0.0 0.5 45 0.5 1 55 0.6 0.7 L 0.3 L

Chemical 4/27 1.7 7.3 89.7 0.0 1.3 216 1.3 5 142 1.4 1.5 L 0.9 L

Tomatoes 10/16 0.9 6.4 92.2 0.0 0.5 50 0.6 1 57 0.6 0.7 L 0.4 L

Potatoes 10/16 1.3 6.4 91.8 0.0 0.5 54 1.9 1 97 1.4 0.8 L 0.4 L

Beans 10/16 1.5 6.6 91.4 0.0 0.5 43 0.6 1 56 0.7 0.8 L 0.4 L

Corn 10/16 1.0 6.1 92.3 0.0 0.6 61 0.5 1 55 0.6 0.8 L 0.3 L

% Base Saturation Micronutrients (ppm) Soluble SaltsExcessLime


25/28


This study shows that the AGGRAND fertilization program, as outlined in The Gardening Guide (AMSOIL,

2010), increased yield in terms of vegetable number and total harvest weight when compared to the leading

chemical fertilizer for these garden vegetables and soil type. Average weight and size of the green beans and

corn were higher, while the overall size of the tomatoes and potatoes was slightly smaller, but not significant.

The leading chemical product used in this study is easy to apply. It is comprised of soluble salts that rapidly

dissolve in water. Application frequency is also straightforward by the simple addition of the product every two

weeks during the growing season. The AGGRAND system enhances the soil environment, but requires the

grower to monitor plant development, flower bloom and fruit growth for timely fertilizer applications, which is

directly correlated to improved yield.

The incorporation of nutrients into plants from the soil and fertilizer has been studied for decades and is well

documented. In order to transport nutrients to the plant cells, mineral compounds must be dissolved in water to

form ions. There are three ways ions move to the root. One is by root interception or simple contact of the ionic

solution with the root. As roots grow and expand there will be an increasing chance that soil water containing

nutrient ions will interact with a root and its hairs, enabling the plant to grow at an increasing rate. Second, when

the plant is transpiring water from the leaves, water is simultaneously being drawn through the stem and root,

pulling water and nutrients from the soil. This mechanism is called mass flow. Last, diffusion occurs when

nutrients are transported from an area of high ion concentration away from the root, toward the root and an areaof low ion concentration (due to the plants intake of the nutrient ions) (Havlin, et al 2005). The mechanisms

employed to transport the nutrients are the same for the leading chemical fertilizer, AGGRAND fertilizers, and

existing soil nutrients without supplemental inputs such as the control plot.

Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium ratios (N,P,K) of the fertilizers employed in this study were 4-3-3, 0-12-0,

and 0-0-8 for the AGGRAND program, and 24-8-16 for the leading chemical fertilizer. Summing the fertilizer

applications performed throughout the study, one would expect the 24-8-16 product to produce more vegetables

due to the greater amount of nutrient ions introduced into the soil. With all plots being the same, with the

exception of fertilizer inputs, there appear to be factors that enhanced the productivity of the AGGRAND

vegetable plot beyond the simple addition of these elements.

There are several factors that may have contributed to the increased production of the AGGRAND plot over

the chemical fertilizer-grown vegetables. One is the treatment of the organic matter and the associatedmicroorganisms in the soil.

Organic matter is one of the most neglected and important components of the soil due to its seasonal release of

plant nutrients. Soils and crops can survive, even when mismanaged, if sufficient organic matter is present

(Albrecht, 1996). According to Kinsey and Walters (2009), Without an active organic matter system in the soil

you cannot grow any crop at all, no matter how much nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus you add.

The soil used in this study had ample, if not ideal amounts of organic matter, but organic matter in its

non-decomposed form has little impact on the soils nutrient level. Many times organic matter and humus are

considered synonymous, but in reality humus is the main driver of holding and supplying nutrients to the plant.

Humus is decomposed organic matter that is the main source of naturally available nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur,

boron and zinc (Kinsey and Walters, 2009). Active organic matter, or humus, along with other soil nutrients is

produced by the activity of organisms in the soil. Soil organisms ranging in size from the smallest bacteria to

earthworms break down organic residues, consume other organisms and enrich the soil by their movement and

death (Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2000). AGGRAND fertilizers incorporate fish, kelp, blood meal and

other carbon sources that provide food for soil organisms, resulting in increased microbial activity, all while

supplying necessary inorganic nutrients. The chemical fertilizer used in this study does not contribute organic

compounds or carbon to the soil organisms. In fact, studies show that inorganic fertilizers, when used alone,

negatively impact microbial populations. The use of organic fertilizer increases the nutrient level, the productive

potential and microbial activity of the soil (Nakhro and Dkhar, 2010). Again, with the increase in organic and

sustainable farming practices a greater awareness has developed regarding the use of chemical fertilizers and

Conclusions


26/28


pesticides. Among the reasons chemical fertilizers are prohibited in an organic agricultural system is their negative

impact on microorganisms and earthworm populations (Bolen, et.al., 1996). According to Mder, et.al. (2002), who

conducted a 21-year study in central Europe comparing organic to conventional farming systems, organically

managed soils exhibit greater biological activity than the conventionally managed soils. Their study also revealed

a 1.3- to 3.2-fold increase in the number of earthworms in the organic system as compared to conventionally

farmed plots (Mder, et.al., 2002).

Humic substances, which include humic and fulvic acids are derived from decomposed soil organic matter or

peat and range from yellow to a dark brown to black in color (Jones, Jr., 2005, Rauthan and Schnitzer, 1981).

The physical and chemical properties of these compounds are derived from the environment in which they were

formed. Humic and fulvic acids are formulated into AGGRAND Kelp and Sulfate of Potash (NKP) and

AGGRAND Natural Fertilizer (NOF), which may account for the increased yield when compared to the inorganic

fertilizer. Studies show that humic and fulvic acids promote growth and increased microbial activity within the

soil. Recent research has revealed that humic acids play a definite role in influencing mineral nutrition, holding

micronutrient metal ions, and the macronutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. These compounds also

influence plant hormones, antioxidant status and photosynthetic capacity (Schmidt and Zhang, 1998). The

inorganic product only provides nutrients via the dissolution of salts into ions.

In the early 20th century it was found that humic substances influence plant hormonal activity and increasedmineral ion solubility, specifically iron. Years of research has revealed that humic compounds enhance turf root

development, and tree seedlings have a propensity to increase the absorption of key nutrients such as nitrogen,

phosphorus, calcium, zinc, iron, magnesium, potassium and copper. Specifically, fulvic acid forms stable

compounds containing iron, and enhances the uptake of this essential element through the plant from the roots

system to the shoots. It has also been found that foliar spraying humic substances on the plant increase the

chlorophyll content of the leaves, helping prevent chlorosis in corn plants by the increased uptake of magnesium

and iron and making the plants more resistant to environmental stresses and disease (Schmidt and Zhang,

1998). Rauthan and Schnitzer (1981) reported that concentrations of fulvic acid ranging from 100 parts per

million (ppm) to 300 ppm increased the growth and development of cucumber plants, above and below ground,

but also found, at low concentrations, increased algal and microbial growth within the soil. In addition, the

number of flowers was increased which has a direct correlation to yield.

Kelp, commonly known as seaweed, has been used for human consumption and as a soil amendment since the

advent of civilization. Extracts of seaweed are still used in agriculture and detailed research on the benefits of

these extracts has been available since the early 1950s (Thirumaran, et.al., 2009, Senn, 1987). Commercially

manufactured seaweed extracts for agricultural use have been employed for at least forty five years (Reitz and

Trimble, 1996).

Numerous studies show that potassium, key micronutrients, plant hormones, growth regulators/promoters,

carbohydrates, proteins and vitamins are supplied by kelp species such as the Ascophyllum nodosum that is

formulated into AGGRAND Natural Fertilizer and AGGRAND Kelp and Sulfate of Potash (Thirumaran, et.al.,

2009, Senn, 1987). Field trials show that foliar applications of seaweed extract to bananas increase fruit

productivity and shorten the time to shoot development. Kelp soil applications resulted in increased crop yields

of a diversity of crops including oranges, potatoes, tomatoes, sweet corn and peppers. Improved shelf-life and

resistance to drought and disease are also realized when the proper amounts of kelp are added to a fertilizationprogram (Senn, 1987). Some experts report greater leaf mass compared to control plants when studying

Ascophyllum nodosum extracts on Henderson Bush lima beans (Reitz and Trumble, 1996).

Finally, test plot soil fertility will be monitored from year to year. From the soil analyses obtained to date,

AGGRAND fertilizers appear to contribute to soil fertility, or directly provide the plants with enough nutrients to

sustain healthy growth. More study must be done to determine the long-term effects of fertilizer applications to

these plots.


27/28


Albrecht, W.A. (1996). The Albrecht papers. (Vol. 1). Metairie, LA: Acres U.S.A.

AMSOIL INC. (2010). The AGGRAND gardening guide. G1292. Superior, WI: AMSOIL, INC.

Bolan, N.S., L.D. Currie, and S. Baskaran. (1996). Assessment of the influence of phosphate fertilizers on

the microbial activity of pasture soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 21: 284-292.

Havlin, J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale, and W.L. Nelson. (2005). Soil fertility and fertilizers, an introduction

to nutrient management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

International Ag Labs, Inc. (2010). High brix chart. Available at: http://www.highbrixgardens.com/pdf/brix-

chart.pdf

Jones, Jr., J.B. (2005). Hydroponics a practical guide for the soilless grower. Boco Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kinsey, N. and C. Walters. (2009). Hands on agronomy. Austin, TX: Acres U.S.A.

Mder, P., A. Fliebach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried, and U. Niggli. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in

organic farming. Science. 296: 16941697.

McLoughlin, A.J. and E. Kster. (1972). The effect of humic substances on the respiration and growth ofmicroorganisms. Plant and Soil. 37: 17-25.

Nakhro, N., and M.S. Dkhar. (2010). Impact of organic and inorganic fertilizers on microbial populations

and biomass carbon in paddy field soil. Journal of Agronomy. 9 (3): 102-110

National Stone Association. (1986). Aglime fact book. Washington, D.C.: National Stone Association.

Organic Trade Association. (2010). Industry statistics and projected growth. Available at: http://www.ota.

com/organic/faq.html

Rauthan, B.S. and M. Schnitzer. (1981). Effects of a soil fulvic acid on the growth and nutrient content of

cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants. Plant and Soil. 63: 491-495.

Reitz, S.R., and J.T. Trumble. (1996). Effects of Cytokinin-containing seaweed extract on Phaseolus

lunatus L.: influence of nutrient availability and apex removal. Botanica Marina. 39: 33-38.

Schmidt, R.E. and X. Zhang. (1998). How humic substances help turfgrass grow. Golf Course

Management. 66(7):65-67.

Senn, T.L. (1987). Seaweed and plant growth. Clemson, SC: Senn.

Soil and Water Conservation Society. (2000). Soil biology primer. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water

Conservation Society.

The Rodale Institute. (2010). History of the Rodale Institute. Available at: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/

about_us#history

Thilmany, D. (2006). The U.S. organic industry: Important trends and emerging issues for the USDA .

Colorado State University Agribusiness Marketing Report ABMR 06-01.

Thirumaran, G., M. Arumugam, R. Arumugam, and P. Anantharaman. (2009). Effect of seaweed liquid

fertilizer on growth and pigment concentration of Abelmoschus esculentus (I) medikus. American-

Eurasian Journal of Agronomy. 2(2): 57-66.

United States Department of Agriculture. (20100. National Organic Program. Available at: http://www.

ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

University of Wisconsin - Extension. (2010). What is organic farming? Available at: http://www.extension.

org/article/18655

References


28/28

Contact your AGGRAND Dealer for more information on AGGRAND products or to place an order. You mayalso order direct by calling AMSOIL INC. at 1-800-956-5695 and providing the referral number listed here.

Referral #_________________________________

Natural FertilizerProven Performancethrough Natural &Organic Ingredients

Multi-purpose excellent

results on flowers, fruits,vegetables, lawns, trees,crops and houseplants

Formulated for foliar feedor soil application

Promotes enhancedplant vigor, increasingresistance to diseaseand stress

Convenient liquidconcentrate

Can be mixed with

other AGGRANDproducts for easyapplication

Natural Kelp andSulfate of PotashNatural FormulaPromotes Healthy,Productive Plants

Improves tolerance forheat, cold and drought

Promotes nitrogen (N) useefficiency

Helps reduce susceptibilityto insect attack andinfection by disease-causingorganisms

Promotes early growth anddevelopment

Helps increase oil contentin seed crops

Promotes early ripening,improved quality andextended shelf-life of fruitsand vegetables

Aids seed formationand nitrogen fixationin legumes

Formulated for foliar feedor soil applications

Natural LiquidBonemealPromotes HealthierVegetables andFlowers through

Fast- and Slow-ReleasePhosphorus

Readily usable sourceof phosphorus (P) andcalcium (C)

Slow-release formula feedsplants throughout thegrowing season

Perfect for all bulbs andtransplants

Outstanding performanceon root and fruit crops

Ideal for flowers

Convenient liquidconcentrate

Can be mixed with otherAGGRAND products foreasy application

Natural Liquid LimeQuickly and NaturallyIncreases CalciumLevels in the Soil

High-quality super-fine

limestoneSpecifically formulated for

foliar and root applications

Use on lawns, pastures andhay fields

Combine with AGGRANDNatural Fertilizer to supplyadditional calcium

Easy-to-apply liquidconcentrate produces nodusty mess

AGGRAND 2010 Vegetable Productivity Study (fertilizer comparison)

Documents

Transcript of AGGRAND 2010 Vegetable Productivity Study (fertilizer comparison)