Straggle Muster 168 - 21/10/2005
WHEN IS A FERTILISER NOT A FERTILISER? With soil scientist Doug Edmeades.
The following is an article from the current issue of The Fertiliser Review. Published twice yearly by agKnowledge Publishing and available via subscription for $45 per year.
WHEN IS A FERTILISER NOT A FERTILISER?
The Fertiliser Industry is deregulated. There is now, given that the Fertiliser Act has been repealed, no legal definition of the word 'fertiliser'. It is possible at present to sell anything and call it a fertiliser. Here is a case in point.
A Tauranga based company called Agrissentials New Zealand Ltd markets a product called Rok Solid. It is described as, "A rock mineral based dry fertiliser blend, formulated to restore both essential minerals to tired soils and the microbial activity necessary to process them." In a report to a farmer the product is called Basalt Rock!
Many general claims are made for the product.
'Farmers using Agrissential's fertilisers have said good-bye to bloat, facial eczema mastitis, staggers, and deaths from nitrate poisoning."
"You'll grow better quality grass and stock grazing it may never again need to see a vet! Your cows will produce better milk and be easier to handle."
"Agrissential's fertilisers make plants grow better and the flavour, appearance and shelf life of produce is improved out of sight."
The company literature appears to use scare tactics to promote its products:
"NPK heavy fertilisers like super, urea and DAP are so concentrated that they are toxic to soil micro-organisms."
"..fifty years of applying artificial accelerating growth additives (he refuses to call them fertilisers) like super, DAP and urea has stripped the soil and left many farms critically deficient in whatever trace elements were originally present."
"Sure, super makes the stuff in your paddocks grow green and long but it's not really grass, its water."
"Salt-based fertiliser is junk food for grass. Just as eating salted chips and peanuts makes you thirsty, so it is with salt-based fertilisers!"
So what is this wonderful product?
The major component of Rok Solid is silica (43%). This is consistent with it being basalt rock as silica is a major component of most rocks. However silica is very inert. If this was not the case our beaches would dissolve! It is most unlikely the adding silica to soils would have any affect whatsoever because soils typically contain about 30-40% silica.
The concentrations of the major nutrients required for plant growth in Rok Solid are given below:
Nutrient (%)
N P K S Ca Mg
0.15 0.8 1.4 0.14 4.4 5.7
Using the conventional rating system for fertilisers, and rounding to the nearest whole number, the N, P, K, S, Mg rating of Rok Solid is 0, 1, 1, 0, 6. Based on the now repealed Fertiliser Act (1960), this product would not meet the definition of a fertiliser. It required that the sum of the NPK ratings was greater than 3.
If the product was applied at 1000 kg/ha, the amounts of nutrients applied in kg/ha would be N 1.5, P 8, K 14 and Mg 57. The value of these nutrients, based on current costs, is about $60. Based on one quotation from a company rep, the product sells at about $300 per tonne! Even allowing for the cost of grinding the rock, this seems a very high margin! And these calculations assume that the nutrients present in Rok Solid are plant available! This is unlikely if the product is indeed basalt rock.
In his defense, Mr John Morris, the company Director stated, ".. our system of soil fertility bears no relationship to the NPK "Balance Sheet" theory, which you advocate, and therefore cannot be measured, or compared to such a theory." The only system I advocate is the sensible practical application of soil and plant science to ensure that soil, plant and animal, health, and production, is achieved and maintained, at the least cost for the farmer. To suggest that his company has its own system, distinct from this, which cannot be measured, is to advocate a dogma. New Zealand farming deserves better than this.
In my opinion this example highlights the need for an appropriate legal definition of the word fertiliser (s) and regulations regarding their use. New Zealand's economy depends on an efficient farming sector and fertilisers are a major cost - this will always be so. Leaving farmers vulnerable to exploitation in this very technical area is not sensible business for NZ Inc. Fertilisers are different from most consumer products - you cannot take them back if they do not work!
My Advice?
If this is a fertiliser, in the common sense use of the word (ie a source of plant available nutrients when applied as recommended), and the benefits claimed for it are true, then my advice to all comers is to go and buy a small block of basalt rich soils (abundant from the Bombay to Northland) preferably with an existing basalt quarry and start mining, grinding, marketing and selling. The gold rush is on!
© 2005 agKnowledge Publishing Ltd
This material is property of agKnowledge Publishing Ltd and is not to be duplicated in any way, shape or form without prior written consent from the publishers.
agKnowledge Ltd is and Independent, Science based advisory company specializing in providing sound scientific based advise for farmers. agKnowledge has One-on-One consultants covering all of New Zealand, call today to discuss your fertiliser program.
The Fertiliser Review is available via subscription for $45 per year (2 issues) ph 0800 33 73 46
*Special Offer*
Subscribe to the Fertiliser Review issues 15 & 16 and receive issues 13 & 14 all for $60 incl gst. Available until the 10th November.
Email: Info@agKnowledge.co.nz
Web: www.agKnowledge.co.nz
Phone: 0800 337 73 46
To sign-up for your weekly copy of the Straggle Muster newsletter click here, fill in your details and we'll add you to our list of "Musterers."
Return to the "Musterers' Archive" by clicking here.