# Excited about the new Carbon-X Fertilizer



## LawnSolo

I'm not sure if you are aware but "The Grass Factor" and "Greeny County Fertilizers CO" joined efforts to create a new slow release fertilizer with N-Ext RGS

This looks very promising.

The only sad news is they will start shipping on February 2019 but in bulk. I believe minimum 1 Ton pallet.

I can't wait to try this out whenever gets available in small factor.

Here are several links for your reading enjoyment :mrgreen:

http://www.greenecountyfert.com/project/carbon-x-granular-fertilizer/

https://carbonearth.co/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db4BaKLnNy4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14bgjAOtzi4


----------



## JohnP

I'm so excited too.


----------



## Colonel K0rn

JohnP said:


> I'm so excited too.


 :lol: I thought those were the "special" sprinkles for the "special" customers... sneaky dog.


----------



## Khy

Hopeful some company up in my area here buys a few pallets somehow.


----------



## Delmarva Keith

I see it as potentially rivaling the popularity of Milorganite and while I don't use Milorganite, I would try the Carbon-X. Slow release, macros and micros, RGS and OM all rolled into one. I think it's going to take off and I can't wait to get my hands on some.

I could go for a quarter ton to try if it's reasonably priced. A full ton is a lot of product for something new and untried. Hopefully their bulk purchasers will distribute in smaller quantities.


----------



## JohnP

GIE is next week, that's when more information will come out I'm sure. One of the live-streams Matt had going my brain associated Valentines with homeowner stuff. Which for me, Cool Season and all, is fine.

Pros will use GIE to secure their product for a 2019 season or to learn what their options are for 2020 if they already have 2019 on lockdown. That's probably an oversimplification. They will also use GIE to party.


----------



## Delmarva Keith

If I'm reading this right, homeowner market is approx 3x pro market. Got no dog in that fight of course but just saying . . .

https://consensus.fsu.edu/Fertilizer-Task-Force/powerpoints/Martinez_Fertilizer_TF_10-11-07.ppt

I think Matt is going to have a very happy year. :nod:


----------



## dacoyne

I am excited also was reading about it the other day and was sad that its not out yet. We (TLF) should split a pallet!


----------



## Scagfreedom48z+

Does anyone know how expensive CarbonX will be for a homeowner?


----------



## Jconnelly6b

dacoyne said:


> I am excited also was reading about it the other day and was sad that its not out yet. We (TLF) should split a pallet!


I just ordered an entire pallet for us Jersey guys :bandit:


----------



## Banzai51

Scagfreedom48z+ said:


> Does anyone know how expensive CarbonX will be for a homeowner?


I believe the bulk order worked out to something like $17/bag. So I would guess one bag for a home owner would come to ~$25/bag. But I may be way off. I'm assuming 35% markup and rounding up. And that assumes they don't offer the home owner a smaller bag size. I also don't know if that pallet rate will change. It may be a special pre-order price.

From the website label for Carbon-X, a 50lb bag covers up to 22,000 sq ft. At 24-0-4, you'd be getting ~.55 lbs of N per 1,000 sq ft at that app rate. (someone double check the math).


----------



## NewLawnJon

Banzai51 said:


> I believe the bulk order worked out to something like $17/bag. So I would guess one bag for a home owner would come to ~$25/bag. But I may be way off. I'm assuming 35% markup and rounding up. And that assumes they don't offer the home owner a smaller bag size. I also don't know if that pallet rate will change. It may be a special pre-order price.
> 
> From the website label for Carbon-X, a 50lb bag covers up to 22,000 sq ft. At 24-0-4, you'd be getting ~.55 lbs of N per 1,000 sq ft at that app rate. (someone double check the math).


The math is correct.

Sounds very reasonably priced for a combo synthetic/organic fertilizer. If I can get it in my area for ~$25 a bag I would be more than happy.

For those using N-EXT RGS would this replace the liquid, or just supplement/compliment the liquid RGS?


----------



## Banzai51

NewLawnJon said:


> The math is correct.
> 
> Sounds very reasonably priced for a combo synthetic/organic fertilizer. If I can get it in my area for ~$25 a bag I would be more than happy.
> 
> For those using N-EXT RGS would this replace the liquid, or just supplement/compliment the liquid RGS?


Just did a quick check, and those prices didn't include shipping. So based on some others that ordered the palate, it came to just over $21/bag. Start the mark up from there. So I'll revise my guesstimate to $30/bag. I really hope the 50lb bags are available to home owners. 2 bags would cover me for the year plus a little extra Throw 'er Down.

As far as I know, it compliments the combo packs of GCF. But I haven't heard from the usual suspects on how applying Carbon-X would alter the biostim applications. I'm guessing we'll find out this winter.


----------



## ABC123

They should contact crop production services and have them be able to order it. Locations are everywhere.


----------



## JohnP

I wouldn't count on that shipping price for a pallet of freight being delivered to a dock door being the same cost as a FedEx or UPS employee dropping a single bag off at your door. Shipping a single 50# bag is going to be a different animal.


----------



## NewLawnJon

JohnP said:


> I wouldn't count on that shipping price for a pallet of freight being delivered to a dock door being the same cost as a FedEx or UPS employee dropping a single bag off at your door. Shipping a single 50# bag is going to be a different animal.


From what I have heard the Carbon-X will be going through the same channels as the other GCF products for home owners (GCI and LCN's websites). Since those sites have the shipping baked into the price I would expect the same to be true on the Carbon-X.

Based on the lower inputs being recommended on Carbon-X compared to similar fertilizers I would think that $50/bag isn't unreasonable. A 50lb bag of synthetic at Lowes or Home Depot tends to be $40-$50. I am guessing I wouldn't have sticker shock unless the price was over $70.


----------



## adgattoni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6K2fO5H2U4

64.99 / 50 lb bag shipped.


----------



## Banzai51

Even at that price, two bags would cover my lawn for the YEAR and have a little left over. Even at ~$130/year, that's still better than a year of Milo price wise.

Typically, I put down 3 bags of Milo per app, 4 times a year, at around $13/bag. Grand total of $156/year.

I still come out ahead with Carbon-X.

Thanks for letting us know John! And I apologize for any grief I caused trying to guess the price.


----------



## Scagfreedom48z+

I wonder how CarbonX would compare to HyrBrix. I'm really interested. The price point isn't horrible for what you get.


----------



## ksturfguy

Yeah I was fully expecting it to be over $60. I'll have a decision to make next year. Definitely more expensive then what I pay now but the extra nutrients I'd get compared to your normal bag of fert might be worth trying. I'll never do Milo but maybe this.


----------



## adgattoni

I think it really hinges on whether you believe in humic/RGS and biochar. I got a 50lb bag of 24-0-11 with micros from Lowe's earlier this year for $27. Still not sold on humic but I have some plans for setting up some test plots next year.


----------



## JohnP

I'm down. Will also make sure I send one off to my mom for her lawn. One bag will cover her lawn for the year easy. I'm sold on humic. I'm sold on biochar. I believe in Matt's approach and 2019 looks to be a fun year for DIY.


----------



## NewLawnJon

One app of Carbon-X will still be less than an app of Milo... I am more than willing to give it a try for a few apps u til we get into the fall blitz next year.

Each app of Milo I did was pushing $60-80 and this combines the benefits of synthetics and organic into one blend. This pricing isn't out of line for what it is.


----------



## Suburban Jungle Life

I wonder if they'll do a discount for local pickup.


----------



## PA Lawn Guy

adgattoni said:


> I think it really hinges on whether you believe in humic/RGS and biochar. I got a 50lb bag of 24-0-11 with micros from Lowe's earlier this year for $27. Still not sold on humic but I have some plans for setting up some test plots next year.


Full price versus full price, Carbon X seems pretty competitive.

For me, my 2018 "mind blown" moment was how much fertilizer goes on deep discount clearance prices in my area in August, right when I need it most. Walmart, Lowes, HD, etc. myriad choices.

So the challenge in my lawn budget is that Carbon X likely stays at full price year-round, versus grabbing one of several 29-0-4 type products for less than $1 per thousand when they go on sale.


----------



## MassHole

$64.99 shipped for Carbon-X 24-0-4, at 50 lbs = 12 lbs of N = $5.42 / lb of N
$13 + tax = ~$13.75 for a bag of Milo picked up at 6-4-0 at 36 lbs = 2.16 lbs of N = $6.37 / lb of N

Very reasonable.


----------



## NewLawnJon

PA Lawn Guy said:


> adgattoni said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it really hinges on whether you believe in humic/RGS and biochar. I got a 50lb bag of 24-0-11 with micros from Lowe's earlier this year for $27. Still not sold on humic but I have some plans for setting up some test plots next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Full price versus full price, Carbon X seems pretty competitive.
> 
> For me, my 2018 "mind blown" moment was how much fertilizer goes on deep discount clearance prices in my area in August, right when I need it most. Walmart, Lowes, HD, etc. myriad choices.
> 
> So the challenge in my lawn budget is that Carbon X likely stays at full price year-round, versus grabbing one of several 29-0-4 type products for less than $1 per thousand when they go on sale.
Click to expand...

In the fall when all of those fertilizers go cheap is when you should be spoon feeding fast action fertilizers... which isn't Carbon-X and more of your ureas in a 46-0-0 for $20 for a $50 pound bag.

The thing that sells me on the Carbon-X is that the bag is 100% materials that are available to the plant, where on the 29-04- type products only 33% of the material is plant available and 77% is just filler to create a spreadable prill.


----------



## ericgautier

NewLawnJon said:


> The thing that sells me on the Carbon-X is that the bag is* 100% materials that are available to the plant*, where on the 29-04- type products only 33% of the material is plant available and 77% is just filler to create a spreadable prill.


+1 :thumbup:


----------



## adgattoni

PA Lawn Guy said:


> adgattoni said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it really hinges on whether you believe in humic/RGS and biochar. I got a 50lb bag of 24-0-11 with micros from Lowe's earlier this year for $27. Still not sold on humic but I have some plans for setting up some test plots next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Full price versus full price, Carbon X seems pretty competitive.
> 
> For me, my 2018 "mind blown" moment was how much fertilizer goes on deep discount clearance prices in my area in August, right when I need it most. Walmart, Lowes, HD, etc. myriad choices.
> 
> So the challenge in my lawn budget is that Carbon X likely stays at full price year-round, versus grabbing one of several 29-0-4 type products for less than $1 per thousand when they go on sale.
Click to expand...

That was full price FYI, not an end of season markdown. In fact - I'm pretty sure this is the bag. $27.98 as of this writing, $2.33 per lb of N.


----------



## NewLawnJon

adgattoni said:


> That was full price FYI, not an end of season markdown. In fact - I'm pretty sure this is the bag. $27.98 as of this writing, $2.33 per lb of N.


That fertilizer is also full of filler (65% if some kind of fill material).

Carbon-X has nothing that is not of benefit to the plant, and results in the ability to apply less N (.6lbs/M is recommended) with as good, if not better results making the cost per application comparable (20,000 square ft at .6 n/M on Carbon-X bag = $3.25/M compared to $2.33 for a $0.92 difference).

At the end of the day each person needs to decide for themselves which route they want to go. I have been putting down Humic DG, and planned on incorporating the N-EXT liquids next year, so for me it is a no brainer. For others what they have been doing for years and is readily available off the local shelf is good enough.

It just comes down to your philosophical views on lawn care (feed the soil vs the plant), and how you feel about the various purchasing paths out there.


----------



## adgattoni

NewLawnJon said:


> adgattoni said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was full price FYI, not an end of season markdown. In fact - I'm pretty sure this is the bag. $27.98 as of this writing, $2.33 per lb of N.
> 
> 
> 
> That fertilizer is also full of filler (65% if some kind of fill material).
> 
> Carbon-X has nothing that is not of benefit to the plant, and results in the ability to apply less N (.6lbs/M is recommended) with as good, if not better results making the cost per application comparable (20,000 square ft at .6 n/M on Carbon-X bag = $3.25/M compared to $2.33 for a $0.92 difference).
> 
> At the end of the day each person needs to decide for themselves which route they want to go. I have been putting down Humic DG, and planned on incorporating the N-EXT liquids next year, so for me it is a no brainer. For others what they have been doing for years and is readily available off the local shelf is good enough.
> 
> It just comes down to your philosophical views on lawn care (feed the soil vs the plant), and how you feel about the various purchasing paths out there.
Click to expand...

Even with the filler, you get an equal weight of N for half the price. The filler would actually make it easier to spread more consistently (like applying milo vs. pure urea).

On the ability to apply less fertilizer - this is what hinges on your belief in humic/biochar. They recommend less because they are saying the addition of RGS/biochar makes it more accessible by the plant. If that is true, then yes it is more efficient and the price points are closer. If that is not true, then you are simply spending more for the same nutrients.


----------



## ksturfguy

My question about the Carbon X, if you guys start using that will you still use the liquid N-EXT products or just the Carbon X? I'm kind of like NewlawnJon. I was going to use Humic DG and the liquid N-EXT products next year but not sure if Carbon X just replaces those or not.


----------



## ericgautier

ksturfguy said:


> My question about the Carbon X, if you guys start using that will you still use the liquid N-EXT products or just the Carbon X? I'm kind of like NewlawnJon. I was going to use Humic DG and the liquid N-EXT products next year but not sure if Carbon X just replaces those or not.


We had this same question in Hometown Discussion and @thegrassfactor offered some advice:



> Let me clarify this a little: You CAN apply RGS or MicroGreene with CX but it's redundant. Basically, it would be "double app'ing" and would only be beneficial in instances of severe micronutrient deficiencies. Outside of that reason, it would be more waste than beneficial.
> 
> And as far as alternating applications, that's not what I would typically recommend, it was to demonstrate not applying them together.
> 
> If you want to use the CX as granular N, a program would look like this
> 
> 1. CX
> 2. CX
> 3. Air 8
> 4. G-effect, RGS
> 5. G-effect, Dthatch
> 6. CX, Air 8
> 7. AMS, RGS
> 
> That's a pretty effective program, and not set in stone of course, but a starting point.


----------



## NewLawnJon

ksturfguy said:


> My question about the Carbon X, if you guys start using that will you still use the liquid N-EXT products or just the Carbon X? I'm kind of like NewlawnJon. I was going to use Humic DG and the liquid N-EXT products next year but not sure if Carbon X just replaces those or not.


John Perry addressed this on his Lawncology video yesterday. The RGS works best through foliar application as a liquid, so you can either use both the N-EXT products and the same products on Carbon-X will help to compliment to foliar applications, or just use the Carbon-X and get some of the benefits that the liquids give.


----------



## Ridgerunner

@NewLawnJon 


ericgautier said:


> NewLawnJon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that sells me on the Carbon-X is that the bag is* 100% materials that are available to the plant*, where on the 29-04- type products only 33% of the material is plant available and 77% is just filler to create a spreadable prill.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Are you saying that a bag of 46-0-0 is 54% filler or that a bag of 21-0-0 is 79% filler?


----------



## thegrassfactor

Ridgerunner said:


> @NewLawnJon
> 
> 
> ericgautier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewLawnJon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing that sells me on the Carbon-X is that the bag is* 100% materials that are available to the plant*, where on the 29-04- type products only 33% of the material is plant available and 77% is just filler to create a spreadable prill.
> 
> 
> 
> +1 :thumbup:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I respectfully disagree. Are you saying that a bag of 46-0-0 is 54% filler or that a bag of 21-0-0 is 79% filler?
Click to expand...

Assuming a 29-0-4 is urea and potassium chloride, the bag is actually 31% filler


----------



## Ridgerunner

thegrassfactor said:


> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> @NewLawnJon
> 
> 
> ericgautier said:
> 
> 
> 
> +1 :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree. Are you saying that a bag of 46-0-0 is 54% filler or that a bag of 21-0-0 is 79% filler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Assuming a 29-0-4 is urea and potassium chloride, the bag is actually 31% filler
Click to expand...

Alright smartie, show them how that's calculated. :tease: :lol:


----------



## summithorn

1. CX 
2. CX
3. Air 8
4. G-effect, RGS 
5. G-effect, Dthatch
6. CX, Air 8
7. AMS, RGS

How would this program differ between warm and cool season turfgrass? I know South Florida will be different than Texas and Washington, but nutshell advice please...?


----------



## Miggity

FWIW, I'm in. I applied 150 lbs of biochar to my organic vegetable garden beds 3 years ago. The "soil" is 90% shredded leaves with added peat, vermiculite, rock dust, oyster shell and a lot of (~20,000) composting worms. I added fish emulsion for the first two years as a nitrogen source. 1st year, meh. 2nd year, my master gardener neighbor switched from Miracle Gro to Osmocote in a failed attempt to keep up. This year I had tomato vines that I cut off at 16 feet to slow growth, no exaggeration. 10 feet up to the top rail and six feet back down unsupported.

I can buy Milo for $6/bag due to location and have used it on my lawn for 10 years, but not near anything I would eat. I do use synthetics on my lawn as well. I added humic and fulvic acid (Anderson's, not GCF) along with kelp this year. It looked good but no dramatic improvements, time will tell. Matt is offering a product that combines all of these approaches (minus the heavy metals delivered via sewage sludge). When you consider the useful life of biochar to be in the 1000's of years (Google Terra Preta), it is almost a no-brainer for me. It is definitely going onto my lawn and landscape beds this year and depending on results, most likely into my garden the following year as I see no ingredients I would object to being near my food.


----------



## Ridgerunner

> Terra Preta


Someones been doing their research. :thumbup: 
I too, over the years, have done some research on HA/FA and biochar and the levels at which they are expected to produce significant benefits.
I don't buy soil amendments at the big box stores, so I don't pay a premium and they are not my standard for "reasonably priced." I haven't used Scotts or any other X-Step program and I have no interest in finding a new N'ext-step substitute. This has become a hobby and as such, I enjoy learning the science and applying learned knowledge for sourcing materials and applying them at the least expensive effective rate for a reasoned expected result. I no longer do anything to my lawn by rote.

So, $64.99. Is that an Earl Scheib special?

I have a great deal of respect for Matt Martin as a person and as a reliable source of knowledge, but sorry Matt, although I wish you great fortune, I'm a pass from here on. John Perry's marketing methods and pricing has soured me on what appears to be a very promising product.


----------



## Miggity

> John Perry's marketing methods and pricing has soured me on what appears to be a very promising product.


You may need to rethink this. Although I have yet to purchase his products, and I agree on your pricing and marketing comments, his science seems legit to a stupid homeowner (me). Add in Matt's knowledge and not only his belief, but believability and I'm open to take a chance. Not only that, but I do not consider it a long-term need (Sorry Matt). Condition your soil with everything it offers and recharge the biochar when depleted as needed with compost (grass clippings). A lawn is not a crop with nutrients being removed from the area unless you are bagging. Feed the soil and the soil will feed the plants.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Ridgerunner said:


> Terra Preta
> 
> 
> 
> Someones been doing their research. :thumbup:
> I too, over the years, have done some research on HA/FA and biochar and the levels at which they are expected to produce significant benefits.
> I don't buy soil amendments at the big box stores, so I don't pay a premium and they are not my standard for "reasonably priced." I haven't used Scotts or any other X-Step program and I have no interest in finding a new N'ext-step substitute. This has become a hobby and as such, I enjoy learning the science and applying learned knowledge for sourcing materials and applying them at the least expensive effective rate for a reasoned expected result. I no longer do anything to my lawn by rote.
> 
> So, $64.99. Is that an Earl Scheib special?
> 
> I have a great deal of respect for Matt Martin as a person and as a reliable source of knowledge, but sorry Matt, although I wish you great fortune, I'm a pass from here on. John Perry's marketing methods and pricing has soured me on what appears to be a very promising product.
Click to expand...

You know I love you, you crotchety old man!!

One thing to keep in mind regarding the price is the cost to move the material. John was simply pointing out how it compared to other players in the space from a "what's in the bag" perspective.

The margins on our end are the same no matter what. The material is trucked to warehouses in relatively small quantities (1-3 pallets) to undergo fulfillment and repackaging as single bags in boxes.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Ridgerunner said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> @NewLawnJon
> 
> I respectfully disagree. Are you saying that a bag of 46-0-0 is 54% filler or that a bag of 21-0-0 is 79% filler?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming a 29-0-4 is urea and potassium chloride, the bag is actually 31% filler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alright smartie, show them how that's calculated. :tease: :lol:
Click to expand...

So here is a list of % active in _active_ materials:

100% Urea - 46%N
100% AMS - 21%N
100% Diammonium phosphate: 18%N 46%P
100% Monoammonium phosphate: 11%N 52%P
100% SOP - 50-52%K
100% MOP - 62%K

Let's take an analysis of 20-0-10 and its derived from urea and muriate of potash

You would take the amount active in the bag and divide it by the amount active in 100% of the source material. ie:
*Urea*
20% urea active in bag/46% urea active in 100% material = ~.43 or 43% of bag is made up of actual urea to get the 20% active urea analysis.
*muriate of potash*
10% potash active in bag/62% potash active in 100% material = ~.16 or 16% of bag is made up of actual potash to get the 10% active potash analysis.

Then you would add the two actual material percentages together (43%+16%) to get your total % of actual material in the bag = 59%

Since we know 59% is the amount of actual material in the bag, we subtract it from 100% to get 41% of space that has to be filled. So 41% of the bag is filler in a 20-0-10 fertilizer.


----------



## Delmarva Keith

Value is determined by the user. If 65 bucks per 50 lbs of product is the delivered price, that's the price. It pains me that likely about half goes to a shipper and not Matt but moving individual 50 lb bags costs a lot of money.

The way I'm looking at it, it's more than double the cost of a good quality controlled release synthetic. Does it provide double the value? It just might. Let's say existing soil conditions and synthetics (or slathering biofert with excessive phosphate and zero potassium, cough milo, cough, cough) get a lawn to pretty good but not outstanding in terms of turf quality, management levels needed, and general resiliance to conditions.

Can Carbon-X push it that last 10% to outstanding or maybe keep it great with far less management.? If so, what's that worth? Double? if it can push improvement with less cost or labor than alteratives (like, say, replacing all the soil with better soil) it is still good value. Even at double I'd like to give it a try. Certainly doesn't seem it could hurt anything and in the grand scheme of $ inputs to a landscape the cost isn't nuts. It is expensive, but if it does what it promises it may well be worth it.


----------



## Suburban Jungle Life

thegrassfactor said:


> So here is a list of % active in _active_ materials:
> 
> 100% Urea - 46%N
> 100% AMS - 21%N
> 100% Diammonium phosphate: 18%N 46%P
> 100% Monoammonium phosphate: 11%N 52%P
> 100% SOP - 50-52%K
> 100% MOP - 62%K
> 
> Let's take an analysis of 20-0-10 and its derived from urea and muriate of potash
> 
> You would take the amount active in the bag and divide it by the amount active in 100% of the source material. ie:
> *Urea*
> 20% urea active in bag/46% urea active in 100% material = ~.43 or 43% of bag is made up of actual urea to get the 20% active urea analysis.
> *muriate of potash*
> 10% potash active in bag/62% potash active in 100% material = ~.16 or 16% of bag is made up of actual potash to get the 10% active potash analysis.
> 
> Then you would add the two actual material percentages together (43%+16%) to get your total % of actual material in the bag = 59%
> 
> Since we know 59% is the amount of actual material in the bag, we subtract it from 100% to get 41% of space that has to be filled. So 41% of the bag is filler in a 20-0-10 fertilizer.


I'm assuming this calc can't be done with a mix of AMS and urea since the N is shared unless it gives % of each content on the bag? But, with a mix of AMS and MAP, the N from the MAP can be sussed out after calculating the P therefore the filler can be calculated?


----------



## Ridgerunner

> I'm assuming this calc can't be done with a mix of AMS and urea since the N is shared unless it gives % of each content on the bag? But, with a mix of AMS and MAP, the N from the MAP can be sussed out after calculating the P therefore the filler can be calculated?


Correct. The formulation sheet would allow for accurate calculations.


----------



## NewLawnJon

I might be looking at the product wrong, but looking at the pricing of what I have been doing for the lawn compared to my plan for next year with Carbon-X instead I think that it really comes down to the price per app of the entire lawn care system.

For example this year I have been doing compared to my plan for next year and the pricing based on bag rates at normal retail:

Price/M/App


Milo	$5
Humic DG	$2
MicroGreene	$3
Net Price	$10


Carbon-X	3.25

On top of this there will still be the pre-emergent, insecticides, liquid RGS/Air-8, and anti-fungals, but as a whole it is taking several products I have been applying individually and combining them.

Will it work as well as what I have been doing? I am not sure yet, but I am willing to give it a try. Doing the math for my normal fertilization process will save me roughly $350 per year.


----------



## Ridgerunner

> his science seems legit


Whatever works for you.  


> One thing to keep in mind regarding the price is the cost to move the material. John was simply pointing out how it compared to other players in the space from a "what's in the bag" perspective.
> 
> The margins on our end are the same no matter what. The material is trucked to warehouses in relatively small quantities (1-3 pallets) to undergo fulfillment and repackaging as single bags in boxes.


Your costs and margins are what they are and each end user, as always, can make their own assessment on a cost/benefit basis. Beyond that, I personally found the pitch patronizing and insulting, but then again, apparently I'm not the target audience. I've said my piece, I'll leave it at that.


> You know I love you, you crotchety old man!!


I'm not crotchety. I'm well passed that. I'm a curmudgeon.


----------



## adgattoni

What's the problem with filler though? Whether it's 0% or 99% filler, what matters to me is the price per pound of nutrients in the bag.

I plan on setting up some test plots on my lawn next season to evaluate the benefits of a few different humic products (will be creating a journal for this to document). Might pick up a bag of this to include in the testing. Maybe I'll extend this out to a multi-year endeavor as well?


----------



## Ridgerunner

@thegrassfactor 
Your explanation on calculating fertilizer content: :thumbup: 
As a manufacturer now, Would you mind explaining the difference between blended fertilizers and homogeneous/compounded fertilizers? Manufacturing processes/methods. Pros and Cons? Which is CarbonX  ?


----------



## PA Lawn Guy

adgattoni said:


> What's the problem with filler though? Whether it's 0% or 99% filler, what matters to me is the price per pound of nutrients in the bag.


100%, well said. Unless the filler used is somehow detrimental to soil or plant health, who cares? The "but there's FILLER" line of reasoning is nonsensical to me...?


----------



## jocoxVT

PA Lawn Guy said:


> adgattoni said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem with filler though? Whether it's 0% or 99% filler, what matters to me is the price per pound of nutrients in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 100%, well said. Unless the filler used is somehow detrimental to soil or plant health, who cares? The "but there's FILLER" line of reasoning is nonsensical to me...?
Click to expand...

I'm a newbie so may be misinterpreting but isn't the draw carbon-x has not only less filler but what is used as "filler" (biochar, rgs, etc) beneficial to the plant? Carbon X provides more than just nitrogen when factoring in everything else in the formula. If you are only worried about pounds on the ground, yes, go with cheapest option but if you want the micro nutrients, iron, rgs, etc carbon x provides a one application solution. As mentioned, full disclosure, newbie and how I was interpreting


----------



## NewLawnJon

jocoxVT said:


> PA Lawn Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adgattoni said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the problem with filler though? Whether it's 0% or 99% filler, what matters to me is the price per pound of nutrients in the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 100%, well said. Unless the filler used is somehow detrimental to soil or plant health, who cares? The "but there's FILLER" line of reasoning is nonsensical to me...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a newbie so may be misinterpreting but isn't the draw carbon-x has not only less filler but what is used as "filler" (biochar, rgs, etc) beneficial to the plant? Carbon X provides more than just nitrogen when factoring in everything else in the formula. If you are only worried about pounds on the ground, yes, go with cheapest option but if you want the micro nutrients, iron, rgs, etc carbon x provides a one application solution. As mentioned, full disclosure, newbie and how I was interpreting
Click to expand...

Correct.

The way I interpret it is that Carbon-X uses for its filler things that many of us are buying outside of our fertilizer. It is using Bio-Char to add carbon to the soil which many of us are using bio-solids, Humic Acid, and other similar items to fill the same need.

On top of that it provides RGS and micronutrients which are also product many of us are doing outside of our routine fertilizer apps.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Ridgerunner said:


> @thegrassfactor
> Your explanation on calculating fertilizer content: :thumbup:
> As a manufacturer now, Would you mind explaining the difference between blended fertilizers and homogeneous/compounded fertilizers? Manufacturing processes/methods. Pros and Cons? Which is CarbonX  ?


Blended fertilizers start with a recipe of raw inputs in Prill, or mostly Prill form, that are weighed and placed into a blender.

So for instance, we'll use our 20-0-10 example, except this time, well add a little iron, say 2%. Ferrous sulfate monohydrate is ~35% Fe. So of that ~40ish% filler, we remove 5.7% and add it back as ferrous sulfate.

So what you're left with in the bag is 4 ingredients: urea, potash, filler, and iron. These exist I. The bag as individual components, just mixed together.

What happens when you spread them?

Let's say 20 granules cover 1 square foot. 
5.7% of them are iron, or 1 granule. 
46% of them are urea, or 9 granules. 
13% are potash or 2.6 granules. 
And 8.4 granules are stone or whatever inert material is used.

So while you may be applying 2 % iron, you're only applying 1 prill per square foot and the argument can be made that as a blend, the fertilizer cannot provide adequate coverage that would result in uniform results. Prill distribution would be too sparse.

When it comes to actually manufacturing fertilizer... Well, let me distinguish between the two. Blending fertilizers is a manufacturing process, but it's not actually manufacturing a fertilizer - It's blending a fertilizer. Manufacturing, in this instance, is either creating an input like urea, or homogenizing multiple inputs, like Contec G, Super Rainbow, or CX. Lets talk about homogenizing s fertilizer as manufacturing. Homogenizing, meaning all of the ingredients in the bag are contained in each individual Prill. So if you have 20 prills per square foot, each Prill will have 46% urea, 13% potash, 35% filler, and 5% ferrous.

Manufacturing a homogenized fertilizer can be done by a couple of ways .

1. Extrusion - pelletizing. If you've ever seen wood pellets or oelletized chicken manure. Materials are fed into a machine that pulverizes them to a certain particle size. Then it's mixed with a viscosity agent, usually a surfactant, to make it tacky. It's then fed into a die and pushed through with significant pressure to to form what looks like the the start of a spaghetti noodle. It's knocked off at a certain length and sent to a tumbler to "polish" it and then sent to a drier to drive off moisture.

This is an antequated way of producing fertilizer, but it produces a fertilizer with high density and strength. Dies are expensive and fertilizer is corrosive. It's very energy intensive.

2. Agglomeration - even though extrusion is technically agglomeration, I'm going to segment agglomeration into it's own category and subdivide it.

A. Heat agglomeration - this method relies on a violent reaction to take place between the inputs. It's often beaten and the friction from the speed of the collision of inputs begins to form bonds between them. It's beneficial because it produces a very hard, dense, small Prill. Because of the heat generated from the reaction, it can drive off nitrogen. The size of the prill is often too small to be utilized as a product for T&O.

B. Pressure agglomeration - see extrusion above

C. Tumble agglomeration - this is where the raw inputs usually enter a hydrolysis chamber to form a slurry and then dripped into a giant rotary kiln that heats and rolls the slurry into a Prill like shape while evaporating off the moisture portion of the slurry. depending on The raw inputs, prill strength could be sacrificed, but the major issue is the handling of generated waste water, and the amount of energy required to run a rotary kiln.

What we do is manufacture our homogenized biochar prolly with N, K, Micronutrientd, and RGS. To get the N analysis that is marketable, we blend it with another homogenized urea/AMS Prill in a 50/50 mix. So we also utilize a blender in our 24 0 4. Our other products in the pipeline will not be blended. This being our first move into the market place, we wanted something "palletable." Our goal was never to enter the homeowner market. It was purely the pro market. How that gap was bridged is a different book by a different author in a different lifetime. Simply out, CX is 50% proprietary biochar release, 50% quick N synthetic release.

I can't tell you our exact process, but we utilize concepts from A and C. Our number 1 priority with the process was being waste free - no waste water, no wasted material. Everything gets recycled back into the process. Our engineering team came from the renewable energy sector and as a result is very cognizant of efficient manufacturing processes and waste streams. Their goal is an ISO 9001(???) Certification . I don't truly know what that means but I trust them to do what needs to be done to set us apart, and they say the ISO Cert does that.

I will say this regarding our engineering team: It's made up of our fathers and their colleagues. We are beyond blessed to have people even more emotionally invested in our success than we are. The team behind CEC is 10x that of the face.

Oh, we don't use a press and we don't use a rotary kiln.


----------



## slomo

Scagfreedom48z+ said:


> Does anyone know how expensive CarbonX will be for a homeowner?


By the pallet?

slomo


----------



## slomo

thegrassfactor said:


> Ridgerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> @thegrassfactor
> Your explanation on calculating fertilizer content: :thumbup:
> As a manufacturer now, Would you mind explaining the difference between blended fertilizers and homogeneous/compounded fertilizers? Manufacturing processes/methods. Pros and Cons? Which is CarbonX  ?
> 
> 
> 
> Blended fertilizers start with a recipe of raw inputs in Prill, or mostly Prill form, that are weighed and placed into a blender.
> 
> So for instance, we'll use our 20-0-10 example, except this time, well add a little iron, say 2%. Ferrous sulfate monohydrate is ~35% Fe. So of that ~40ish% filler, we remove 5.7% and add it back as ferrous sulfate.
> 
> So what you're left with in the bag is 4 ingredients: urea, potash, filler, and iron. These exist I. The bag as individual components, just mixed together.
> 
> What happens when you spread them?
> 
> Let's say 20 granules cover 1 square foot.
> 5.7% of them are iron, or 1 granule.
> 46% of them are urea, or 9 granules.
> 13% are potash or 2.6 granules.
> And 8.4 granules are stone or whatever inert material is used.
> 
> So while you may be applying 2 % iron, you're only applying 1 prill per square foot and the argument can be made that as a blend, the fertilizer cannot provide adequate coverage that would result in uniform results. Prill distribution would be too sparse.
> 
> When it comes to actually manufacturing fertilizer... Well, let me distinguish between the two. Blending fertilizers is a manufacturing process, but it's not actually manufacturing a fertilizer - It's blending a fertilizer. Manufacturing, in this instance, is either creating an input like urea, or homogenizing multiple inputs, like Contec G, Super Rainbow, or CX. Lets talk about homogenizing s fertilizer as manufacturing. Homogenizing, meaning all of the ingredients in the bag are contained in each individual Prill. So if you have 20 prills per square foot, each Prill will have 46% urea, 13% potash, 35% filler, and 5% ferrous.
> 
> Manufacturing a homogenized fertilizer can be done by a couple of ways .
> 
> 1. Extrusion - pelletizing. If you've ever seen wood pellets or oelletized chicken manure. Materials are fed into a machine that pulverizes them to a certain particle size. Then it's mixed with a viscosity agent, usually a surfactant, to make it tacky. It's then fed into a die and pushed through with significant pressure to to form what looks like the the start of a spaghetti noodle. It's knocked off at a certain length and sent to a tumbler to "polish" it and then sent to a drier to drive off moisture.
> 
> This is an antequated way of producing fertilizer, but it produces a fertilizer with high density and strength. Dies are expensive and fertilizer is corrosive. It's very energy intensive.
> 
> 2. Agglomeration - even though extrusion is technically agglomeration, I'm going to segment agglomeration into it's own category and subdivide it.
> 
> A. Heat agglomeration - this method relies on a violent reaction to take place between the inputs. It's often beaten and the friction from the speed of the collision of inputs begins to form bonds between them. It's beneficial because it produces a very hard, dense, small Prill. Because of the heat generated from the reaction, it can drive off nitrogen. The size of the prill is often too small to be utilized as a product for T&O.
> 
> B. Pressure agglomeration - see extrusion above
> 
> C. Tumble agglomeration - this is where the raw inputs usually enter a hydrolysis chamber to form a slurry and then dripped into a giant rotary kiln that heats and rolls the slurry into a Prill like shape while evaporating off the moisture portion of the slurry. depending on The raw inputs, prill strength could be sacrificed, but the major issue is the handling of generated waste water, and the amount of energy required to run a rotary kiln.
> 
> What we do is manufacture our homogenized biochar prolly with N, K, Micronutrientd, and RGS. To get the N analysis that is marketable, we blend it with another homogenized urea/AMS Prill in a 50/50 mix. So we also utilize a blender in our 24 0 4. Our other products in the pipeline will not be blended. This being our first move into the market place, we wanted something "palletable." Our goal was never to enter the homeowner market. It was purely the pro market. How that gap was bridged is a different book by a different author in a different lifetime. Simply out, CX is 50% proprietary biochar release, 50% quick N synthetic release.
> 
> I can't tell you our exact process, but we utilize concepts from A and C. Our number 1 priority with the process was being waste free - no waste water, no wasted material. Everything gets recycled back into the process. Our engineering team came from the renewable energy sector and as a result is very cognizant of efficient manufacturing processes and waste streams. Their goal is an ISO 9001(???) Certification . I don't truly know what that means but I trust them to do what needs to be done to set us apart, and they say the ISO Cert does that.
> 
> I will say this regarding our engineering team: It's made up of our fathers and their colleagues. We are beyond blessed to have people even more emotionally invested in our success than we are. The team behind CEC is 10x that of the face.
> 
> Oh, we don't use a press and we don't use a rotary kiln.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying, with mixed up granular fertilizers, some plants will get more or less of the ingredients compared to a grass plant say 4 inches away. So that tells me my grass is getting an unbalanced diet of nutrients. Uh, I don't see granular as a superior form of fertilizer for my lawn. This is just another reason why I switched to liquid fertilizers.

1. Don't have to worry about lugging hundreds of pounds of fertilizer off the shelf onto a cart in the store. Then into the truck to get it home. Then from the truck to the front or backyard.

2.A liquid fertilizer app weighs like 8 or 9 pounds for my 15,000sf. Less than 1/3 compared to ONE small 36lb bag of Milorganite.

3.Liquids go immediately into the plant. Not sitting on the grass where some torrential down pour can wash it down the street like granulars do. Or someone running a Snapper Hi-Vac mower sucking it all up.

4.Being a liquid, all the ingredients are mixed together in liquid love. No chance of getting an unbalanced nutritional diet like granulars.

5.Lastly is cost. A full fertilizer app for my lawn was like $13.80. I can buy it across the nation at numerous stores within a few miles from each other. Don't need to buy several pallet loads to get all excited.

slomo


----------



## Ridgerunner

Thanks for taking the time to respond @thegrassfactor Very informative, but my conclusion is a new appreciation for how little I know.
Regarding filler, I would have expected that topic to be pretty simple. It's not. Although filler can be just a space filler to add weight, it can also serve a number of useful/necessary purposes: preventing fertilizer from hardening, as a binding material to form prills or pellets, an aid in distributing fertilizer (prevent plant damage due to localized over application of specific compounds), coatings to create slower release, etc. I've discovered that there are filler manufacturers who formulate fillers for many of the purposes above, but also can infuse the filler with micro-nutrients. Beyond that, there are exceptions that can be carved out if the "filler" can be classified as a Beneficial Substance" when supported by research and studies.
Although I may not like one person's marketing, I wont use that broad brush to paint the underlying product. As someone has said, this product incorporates many of the amendments that we might add separately for improving soil in addition to the advantages it may provide in the delivery of nutrients as a fertilizer. We've discussed the attributes of HA/FA and Kelp extract pretty thoroughly elsewhere on this forum, so the benefits are available for us to judge. We haven't had much discussion regarding bio-char, so I thought I'd link this moderately concise document for those interested:

https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/SCM-30.pdf


----------



## thegrassfactor

slomo said:


> So what you are saying, with mixed up granular fertilizers, some plants will get more or less of the ingredients compared to a grass plant say 4 inches away. So that tells me my grass is getting an unbalanced diet of nutrients. Uh, I don't see granular as a superior form of fertilizer for my lawn. This is just another reason why I switched to liquid fertilizers.


That's the theory, and you're right. Granular is not a superior form of fertility. I don't think anyone would argue that. But from a professional perspective, it's much easier to cover acreage with a riding spreader or tractor than it is to tote around 200-20000 gallons of liquid.



slomo said:


> 2.A liquid fertilizer app weighs like 8 or 9 pounds for my 15,000sf. Less than 1/3 compared to ONE small 36lb bag of Milorganite.


A liquid fertilizer may only weight 8 or 9 pounds, but how many pounds of actual nutrients are you actually putting out? Remember liquid fertilizers are granular fertilizers dissolved in water. So if you dissolve 2 pounds of urea (46%N) in a gallon of water, in that gallon, you only have ~1lb of actual nitrogen. So in ~10.5lbs of liquid, you get ~1lb of nitrogen, where as that same in granular would only require 2lbs.



slomo said:


> 3.Liquids go immediately into the plant. Not sitting on the grass where some torrential down pour can wash it down the street like granulars do. Or someone running a Snapper Hi-Vac mower sucking it all up.


Thats assuming all the fertilizer in your liquid can be taken in foliarly. If you're microdosing, sure it can all be taken in foliarly. If not, once it is washed off the leaf surface into the soil, it will then be taken up by the roots. It's not as simple as you're making it sound.



slomo said:


> 4.Being a liquid, all the ingredients are mixed together in liquid love. No chance of getting an unbalanced nutritional diet like granulars.


Correct, assuming homogenized vs blended vs prill size vs prill distribution.



slomo said:


> 5.Lastly is cost. A full fertilizer app for my lawn was like $13.80. I can buy it across the nation at numerous stores within a few miles from each other. Don't need to buy several pallet loads to get all excited.


Again, Carbon X was not designed for you, the advanced applicator. It was designed for the professional market for applicators that utilize machines and want a product that can deliver more than they currently have available to them from their suppliers - expensive granular NPK inputs. On the lawn care side of things, people have integrated more and more and more machines into their businesses. They're fast, they're efficient, and it keeps employees around longer. They want to do more things for the soil. Trucking around a topdresser and spreading biochar is a logistical night mare. Plus, it lacks density, so it makes flowability a nightmare.

There is nothing _special_ about what we're doing. We have a unique slow release delivery that reconstitutes back into the soil as an amendment, and we offer N, k, micros, and a biostimulant. It gives the granular guy the opportunity to have a soil up approach with what, in my research, is superior to massive rates of high phos compounds. I guess I'm confused on why you need to buy several pallets to get excited. You're a liquid fertility guy.


----------



## Pete1313

thegrassfactor said:


> What we do is manufacture our homogenized biochar prolly with N, K, Micronutrientd, and RGS. To get the N analysis that is marketable, we blend it with another homogenized urea/AMS Prill in a 50/50 mix. So we also utilize a blender in our 24 0 4. Our other products in the pipeline will not be blended. This being our first move into the market place, we wanted something "palletable." Our goal was never to enter the homeowner market. It was purely the pro market. How that gap was bridged is a different book by a different author in a different lifetime. Simply out, CX is 50% proprietary biochar release, 50% quick N synthetic release.


@thegrassfactor, if I am understanding correct there will be 2 different prills in Carbon-X? One homogenized biochar with N, K, Micronutrients, and RGS and the other a homogenized urea/AMS? Due to the separate prill of urea/AMS, if correct, is it suggested to water in the product after applying?


----------



## thegrassfactor

Ridgerunner said:


> Thanks for taking the time to respond @thegrassfactor Very informative, but my conclusion is a new appreciation for how little I know. Regarding filler, I would have expected that topic to be pretty simple. It's not. Although filler can be just a space filler to add weight, it can also serve a number of useful/necessary purposes:
> 
> preventing fertilizer from hardening,
> as a binding material to form prills or pellets,
> an aid in distributing fertilizer (prevent plant damage due to localized over application of specific compounds),
> coatings to create slower release, etc.


When I'm talking about fillers in granular fertilizers, assuming a non homogenized blend, I'm talking about the addition of rocks OR CaCO3 or whatever other inert material they choose to insert at a blending facility. Specifically, if we're to talk about one of the well known blenders for the pro market, it's primarily lime stone.

When we're talking about a bag of 40% filler, that weight cannot be eaten up by lignosulfonate (organic "filler" to "slow" release or act as a binder), or a polymer. That kind of weight has to be replaced by something with density. Crushed aggregate is typical.

The point is, the majority of the time the filler used in bags is crushed aggregate. Sometimes it's used to carry a sprayed on micronutrient package or an herbicide.

Instead of using crushed aggregate, why not use something like a homogenized biochar based product? Is there a greater value to the applicator there? I argue yes, yes there is, over a crushed aggregate.

Now days, we have a few more options like biosolids or sulpomag. Personally, I want biochar.

I'm not going to argue that it's better. It's another option. It's another tool in the tool box. It's not a smoking gun. It's another bullet in the magazine.



Ridgerunner said:


> I've discovered that there are filler manufacturers who formulate fillers for many of the purposes above, but also can infuse the filler with micro-nutrients.
> Beyond that, there are exceptions that can be carved out if the "filler" can be classified as a Beneficial Substance" when supported by research and studies.


Yes, there are tons of fillers out there. For the pro market, we're primarily sold crushed aggregate. So for the sake of this conversation and conversations related to fillers, I will adhere to filler as crushed aggregate.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Pete1313 said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we do is manufacture our homogenized biochar prolly with N, K, Micronutrientd, and RGS. To get the N analysis that is marketable, we blend it with another homogenized urea/AMS Prill in a 50/50 mix. So we also utilize a blender in our 24 0 4. Our other products in the pipeline will not be blended. This being our first move into the market place, we wanted something "palletable." Our goal was never to enter the homeowner market. It was purely the pro market. How that gap was bridged is a different book by a different author in a different lifetime. Simply out, CX is 50% proprietary biochar release, 50% quick N synthetic release.
> 
> 
> 
> if I am understanding correct there will be 2 different prills in Carbon-X? One homogenized biochar with N, K, Micronutrients, and RGS and the other a homogenized urea/AMS? Due to the separate prill of urea/AMS, if correct, is it suggested to water in the product after applying?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any nutritional product applied that does not need to be watered in. If you're concerned with it sitting until a rain, I'll explain it this way: in the pro market we typically apply 25-50% slow release granular fertilizers. Roughly 50% of our properties are irrigated. Roughly 10% of our non-irrigated customers ever water their lawn. So will you cause damage if you apply it and don't water it? No. Should you water it? Yes. Is there a time frame? Ideally with 7 days. Will the results change if it extends to 3 weeks? Likely, but not in any way you could visually pinpoint.


----------



## Ridgerunner

I shouldn't have mixed topics in my post. Just saying the definition of filler can be pretty fluid. but crushed rock will work for me


----------



## Pete1313

thegrassfactor said:


> I'm not aware of any nutritional product applied that does not need to be watered in. If you're concerned with it sitting until a rain, I'll explain it this way: in the pro market we typically apply 25-50% slow release granular fertilizers. Roughly 50% of our properties are irrigated. Roughly 10% of our non-irrigated customers ever water their lawn. So will you cause damage if you apply it and don't water it? No. Should you water it? Yes. Is there a time frame? Ideally with 7 days. Will the results change if it extends to 3 weeks? Likely, but not in any way you could visually pinpoint.


I apologize and fully understand that a granular product needs to get to the soil and be eventially watered in. I also know that losses and volatilization are variable and dependant on time, temperature, soil moisture, PH. My question was geared towards the urea/AMS prill that might sit on the soil surface for a few weeks and some nitrogen might be lost(again debatable on how much) as opposed to another product that might be coated and protected from such losses until it is irrigated.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Pete1313 said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of any nutritional product applied that does not need to be watered in. If you're concerned with it sitting until a rain, I'll explain it this way: in the pro market we typically apply 25-50% slow release granular fertilizers. Roughly 50% of our properties are irrigated. Roughly 10% of our non-irrigated customers ever water their lawn. So will you cause damage if you apply it and don't water it? No. Should you water it? Yes. Is there a time frame? Ideally with 7 days. Will the results change if it extends to 3 weeks? Likely, but not in any way you could visually pinpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize and fully understand that a granular product needs to get to the soil and be eventially watered in. I also know that losses and volatilization are variable and dependant on time, temperature, soil moisture, PH. My question was geared towards the urea/AMS prill that might sit on the soil surface for a few weeks and some nitrogen might be lost(again debatable on how much) as opposed to another product that might be coated and protected from such losses until it is irrigated.
Click to expand...

Hey Pete, I'm sorry, I came across as a d head there. You're right, you'll see some loss on that prill.


----------



## Pete1313

No worries.. I didn't take it that way at all.


----------



## JohnP

Coolest thing about this thread? The people with questions about the product are getting answers from the guy that is working hard to deliver it.

Neat!


----------



## ksturfguy

JohnP said:


> Coolest thing about this thread? The people with questions about the product are getting answers from the guy that is working hard to deliver it.
> 
> Neat!


Agreed. Love that he's willing to come on here and answer so many questions. It's already been said but this product really isn't made for the DIY homeowner, it's more for lawn care companies, but yet he's still willing to come on here and discuss the product with us.

Also maybe I haven't watched enough of his videos but I'm also not sure what's so bad about John's marketing. I've always been serious about my lawn but really just this August is when I've found this forum and all the YouTube channels like LCN, GCI Turf, Lawncology, etc etc. so maybe I've missed something.


----------



## thegrassfactor

JohnP said:


> Coolest thing about this thread? The people with questions about the product are getting answers from the guy that is working hard to deliver it.
> 
> Neat!


Did you just hug me? :lol:



ksturfguy said:


> Agreed. Love that he's willing to come on here and answer so many questions. It's already been said but this product really isn't made for the DIY homeowner, it's more for lawn care companies, but yet he's still willing to come on here and discuss the product with us.
> 
> Also maybe I haven't watched enough of his videos but I'm also not sure what's so bad about John's marketing. I've always been serious about my lawn but really just this August is when I've found this forum and all the YouTube channels like LCN, GCI Turf, Lawncology, etc etc. so maybe I've missed something.


@Ridgerunner is not your average lawn enthusiast. He's a knowledge hungry scientist hiding behind his humility. He knows more than I do about soils and he wants to be talked to that way. Ridge doesn't want to see price comparisons to store bought fertilizers or over simplifications. He doesn't want a stream of consciousness format. He wants ingredient value and technical detail. (I'm sorry for speaking for you.)

I'll give another example: one of our CEC employees watched the same video and was really impressed at how easy it was to follow along - so much so that he even went to the local HD and did the same tour of the fertilizer aisle.

Point is: we're all at different levels of understanding when it comes to turf and soil science. John just wanted to get the message out that CX was going to be available to homeowners - so he took an average homeowner approach to announcing it. JP also knows that I'll be doing an in depth, very technical video about application, interaction in the soil, etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the average member of TLF knows more than the average professional applicator. That's why @Greendoc is here, that's why I'm here: to learn and share.

tl;dr Ridge is a scientist, he wants to be marketed to as such.


----------



## Suburban Jungle Life

thegrassfactor said:


> the average member of TLF knows more than the average professional applicator.


Ouch. Really? That's not good... (for the industry...)


----------



## ksturfguy

Suburban Jungle Life said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> the average member of TLF knows more than the average professional applicator.
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch. Really? That's not good... (for the industry...)
Click to expand...

Not really that surprising. The average TLF member is someone who is really serious about their lawn and has probably researched it a lot. The average lawn care professional, it's probably just a job for them and they don't know a lot of the science behind what their doing. They just follow the program given to them by their company.


----------



## Ridgerunner

BS. I'm an lawn enthusiast just like everyone else here, so quit with your attempt to preemptively disarm me with with patronizing compliments, you lily livered grass jockey. Nice try, but no cigar. Let's look at the fact:
1. No normal person watches youtube lawn care videos like @thegrassfactor @wardconnor @LawnCareNut @ryanknorr and many others OR LAWNCOLOGY if they aren't enthusiasts.
2. As you admitted, enthusiasts are reasonably knowledgeable.
3. Reasonably knowledgeable lawn enthusiasts don't DEFAULT to Home Depot or Scotts for their sourcing.
Many, MANY have learned to find a specialty vendor like a local Seed and Feed or SiteOne. When that fails, we will source otherwise unavailable specialty products on the internet.
4. Therefor, a fair argument for assessing a price comparison would be all of the aforesaid sources. Like SOP (for me) CarbonX isn't available at my local Feed and Seed stores (3 of them btw) nor at SiteOne.
5. So, like my SOP acquisitions, I'm going to need to buy it over the internet.
6. So a logical presentation would be to compare the internet prices of 50 lbs of product to make a value/fair price judgment.
For instance, Here are the Amazon prices of 50 lb fertilizers shipped to my door (scan though for 50# as Amazon doesn't provide a filter:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=fertilizer+50+lb+bag
Don't poke sleeping dogs or bring a knife to a gunfight.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Ridgerunner said:


> BS. I'm an lawn enthusiast just like everyone else here, so quit with your attempt to preemptively disarm me with with patronizing compliments, you lily livered grass jockey. Nice try, but no cigar.


Patronizing compliments? I'll quote you from the discord.

_RidgerunnerToday at 11:09 AM
@JPink No I haven't. I kknow that is done for compst analysis, but not specifically for soil, However, YES, by the backdoor through OM testing. I only know of two methods for testing carbon content: the Walkley Black method (very hazardous chemical, chromium) and the LOI (loss on ignition) method. Both are used to determine Carbon content which is the multiplied by a factor (commonly 1.72) to calculate OM%. So, theoretically, you could divide OM by the factor to get % Carbon content_

Who knows that information? Not me. You don't market yourself. I do. As an expert. And I learn from you _ALL THE TIME._ Whether you admit it or not, you're not a lawn enthusiast. You're a scientist. That's why I'm patronizing you, gunslinger.

Also, with the lily-livered, are you making a joke about my drinking? I'll have you, my liver functions exceptionally well given my propensity for consumption during U. Tenn. football season.



Ridgerunner said:


> 1. No normal person watches youtube lawn care videos like @thegrassfactor @wardconnor @LawnCareNut @ryanknorr and many others OR LAWNCOLOGY if they aren't enthusiasts.


I beg to differ. I have many lawn enthusiasts that contact me daily with statements like, "Wow! I just started watching your videos. I live in South Georgia. Is now a good time to aerate and overseed my bermuda?"

OR

"I saw your video on Milorganite. Should I apply 10-10-10 instead?"

I watch AvE, Casey Neistat, weldingtipsandtricks, ChuckE2009, Velvethamma, etc. Is it because I'm an enthusiast? Partially. And while I do love to weld, I would never attempt to take apart tools like AvE nor would I ever attempt to do the body work that Velvethamma does. I enjoy watching them do the work and hearing them talk about it. I have no real interest in it. Again, I think your confusion lies in the average lawn care enthusiast and the personalities that exist on TLF. TLF is not the status quo. It is advanced.



Ridgerunner said:


> 2. As you admitted, enthusiasts are reasonably knowledgeable.
> 3. Reasonably knowledgeable lawn enthusiasts don't DEFAULT to Home Depot or Scotts for their sourcing.
> Many, MANY have learned to find a specialty vendor like a local Seed and Feed or SiteOne. When that fails, we will source otherwise unavailable specialty products on the internet.


Sure, but following that same logic - I'm a welding enthusiast by your definition. Guess where I default for welding materials. Home Depot. Lincoln. I have never stepped foot into a welding shop. I go through a 10lb spool once a month. So if Jody or ChuckE did a video comparing big box store welding supplies, I wouldn't have an issue with it, because it appeals to an "enthusiast" like me.



Ridgerunner said:


> 4. Therefor, a fair argument for assessing a price comparison would be all of the aforesaid sources. Like SOP (for me) CarbonX isn't available at my local Feed and Seed stores (3 of them btw) nor at SiteOne.
> 5. So, like my SOP acquisitions, I'm going to need to buy it over the internet.
> 6. So a logical presentation would be to compare the internet prices of 50 lbs of product to make a value/fair price judgment.
> For instance, Here are the Amazon prices of 50 lb fertilizers shipped to my door (scan though for 50# as Amazon doesn't provide a filter:
> https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=fertilizer+50+lb+bag
> Don't poke sleeping dogs or bring a knife to a gunfight.


I agree, I think a fair assessment would be to TO compare it to online bought products. And that content is coming. You have to remember, we're still adjusting ramp schedules, etc. We're lobbing information out there to gauge interest and watch feedback. Keep in mind Ridge, this is massive undertaking that we're attempting on a super tight budget. We don't have the finances of Anuvia - $160mil. We don't Bill and Melinda gates behind us like AgBiome. We're a couple of "enthusiasts" that found JUST ENOUGH money to be able to build this facility. We never intended to bring it to the DIY market. We don't know the DIY market. So when you see a video comparing it to other store bought products, it's not gospel, it's to make the determination "do we really want to do this" and gather some analytical data on a market we don't understand.

So listen here, old man. I'll compliment you when I deem it necessary, and it's not to soften you, it's a matter of fact (see statement above about carbon testing procedures). I may be poking the sleeping dog, but I do so because your humility is comical. The excessive noises from your creaking bones don't take away from the power of your brain.


----------



## pennstater2005




----------



## Scagfreedom48z+

ksturfguy said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolest thing about this thread? The people with questions about the product are getting answers from the guy that is working hard to deliver it.
> 
> Neat!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Love that he's willing to come on here and answer so many questions. It's already been said but this product really isn't made for the DIY homeowner, it's more for lawn care companies, but yet he's still willing to come on here and discuss the product with us.
> 
> Also maybe I haven't watched enough of his videos but I'm also not sure what's so bad about John's marketing. I've always been serious about my lawn but really just this August is when I've found this forum and all the YouTube channels like LCN, GCI Turf, Lawncology, etc etc. so maybe I've missed something.
Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious benefits and features that this fertilizer brings to the market, what would make this any different from any other nitrogen based fertilizer that would make this product not meant for DIY'ers?


----------



## ksturfguy

Scagfreedom48z+ said:


> ksturfguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coolest thing about this thread? The people with questions about the product are getting answers from the guy that is working hard to deliver it.
> 
> Neat!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Love that he's willing to come on here and answer so many questions. It's already been said but this product really isn't made for the DIY homeowner, it's more for lawn care companies, but yet he's still willing to come on here and discuss the product with us.
> 
> Also maybe I haven't watched enough of his videos but I'm also not sure what's so bad about John's marketing. I've always been serious about my lawn but really just this August is when I've found this forum and all the YouTube channels like LCN, GCI Turf, Lawncology, etc etc. so maybe I've missed something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the obvious benefits and features that this fertilizer brings to the market, what would make this any different from any other nitrogen based fertilizer that would make this product not meant for DIY'ers?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean DIY couldn't use it. I meant Matt and John have made it clear this product was made for commercial use, to be sold in bulk to companies. The DIY'ers wasn't their intended market. Obviously enough people showed interest in the product that they decided to find a way to make it available for people like you and me.

This company isn't like Scotts or someone else who is sending their products to Lowes/Home Depot and the DIY guy is their primary target, it's just a little different. Sorry didn't mean to sound like a homeowner isn't capable of using it or something.


----------



## Scagfreedom48z+

ksturfguy said:


> Scagfreedom48z+ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ksturfguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Love that he's willing to come on here and answer so many questions. It's already been said but this product really isn't made for the DIY homeowner, it's more for lawn care companies, but yet he's still willing to come on here and discuss the product with us.
> 
> Also maybe I haven't watched enough of his videos but I'm also not sure what's so bad about John's marketing. I've always been serious about my lawn but really just this August is when I've found this forum and all the YouTube channels like LCN, GCI Turf, Lawncology, etc etc. so maybe I've missed something.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the obvious benefits and features that this fertilizer brings to the market, what would make this any different from any other nitrogen based fertilizer that would make this product not meant for DIY'ers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't mean DIY couldn't use it. I meant Matt and John have made it clear this product was made for commercial use, to be sold in bulk to companies. The DIY'ers wasn't their intended market. Obviously enough people showed interest in the product that they decided to find a way to make it available for people like you and me.
> 
> This company isn't like Scotts or someone else who is sending their products to Lowes/Home Depot and the DIY guy is their primary target, it's just a little different. Sorry didn't mean to sound like a homeowner isn't capable of using it or something.
Click to expand...

No apologies needed at all. I was just curious if there was something particular that this fertilizer might have that would make it difficult for a DIY'er to grasp.


----------



## Green

@thegrassfactor , how much of the total in the bag (or homogeneous prill) is AMS? I didn't see it on the analysis, but wanted to do some calculations as I hope to try it. Thanks!


----------



## thegrassfactor

Green said:


> @thegrassfactor , how much of the total in the bag (or homogeneous prill) is AMS? I didn't see it on the analysis, but wanted to do some calculations as I hope to try it. Thanks!


25% by weight of the bag, 6% by amount of nitrogen


----------



## Green

Wow, you guys...who knew lawncare was such a contentious subject. For the record, I value contributions from both @thegrassfactor and @Ridgerunner, the positive tone here is major part of what sets this place apart from the rest of the net!


----------



## Green

thegrassfactor said:


> Green said:
> 
> 
> 
> @thegrassfactor , how much of the total in the bag (or homogeneous prill) is AMS? I didn't see it on the analysis, but wanted to do some calculations as I hope to try it. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 25% by weight of the bag, 6% by amount of nitrogen
Click to expand...

Thank you. And that's great to hear! 
So, is the rest of the Nitrogen (24-6=18%) from the composted chicken manure?


----------



## thegrassfactor

Green said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green said:
> 
> 
> 
> @thegrassfactor , how much of the total in the bag (or homogeneous prill) is AMS? I didn't see it on the analysis, but wanted to do some calculations as I hope to try it. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 25% by weight of the bag, 6% by amount of nitrogen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you. And that's great to hear!
> So, is the rest of the Nitrogen (24-6=18%) from the composted chicken manure?
Click to expand...

Urea. Less than 1% from CPM.


----------



## Ridgerunner

@Scagfreedom48z+ Just guessing, but I think when @thegrassfactor says it was intended for the professional vs DIYer, he was referring to the market (logistics, etc.) rather than anything specific about the product itself.
It's not like the DIYer would shoot his eye out from using it. The DIYer is just gonna have some problems getting his hands on it.


----------



## Green

@Ridgerunner, another valid consideration to a pro is nutrient density, so the fact that this is 24% N makes it not only more cost effective than an organic like Milo (in my area, at least). But also less bags to haul around, and less time to apply it. This is a big consideration for a pro applicator who has 15 properties to do in a day!


----------



## Green

thegrassfactor said:


> Urea. Less than 1% from CPM.


Thanks!

While I have your ear, how much of the 4% K is SOP versus MOP?


----------



## thegrassfactor

Green said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Urea. Less than 1% from CPM.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> While I have your ear, how much of the 4% K is SOP versus MOP?
Click to expand...

half and half. As we get closer to fulfilling orders, we will update with a final full analysis on the label. We're holding off for the time being because of the potential to reverse engineer what we're doing. it's not complicated. but we designed it, so we want to be the first to release it.


----------



## Green

thegrassfactor said:


> Green said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Urea. Less than 1% from CPM.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> While I have your ear, how much of the 4% K is SOP versus MOP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> half and half. As we get closer to fulfilling orders, we will update with a final full analysis on the label. We're holding off for the time being because of the potential to reverse engineer what we're doing. it's not complicated. but we designed it, so we want to be the first to release it.
Click to expand...

Cool. I hear ya. Also, there's always the possibility that you might have to slightly change the product's contents in 5 years, 10 years, etc. But knowing you, it's more likely that a version II would come out before that happened.


----------



## thegrassfactor

Green said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> While I have your ear, how much of the 4% K is SOP versus MOP?
> 
> 
> 
> half and half. As we get closer to fulfilling orders, we will update with a final full analysis on the label. We're holding off for the time being because of the potential to reverse engineer what we're doing. it's not complicated. but we designed it, so we want to be the first to release it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool. I hear ya. Also, there's always the possibility that you might have to slightly change the product's contents in 5 years, 10 years, etc. But knowing you, it's more likely that a version II would come out before that happened.
Click to expand...

My favorite thing about this industry is that I'm forever a student. What I think I know now changes day by day. As I learn, as the consumer learns, as the professional learns, the product will evolve. If there's anything I've learned in this process to now - still 1 month out from turning the lights on - it's evolve, adapt, and execute. Perfection is not reality.

One thing we'll see over the next decades is a shift in plant genetics. With CRSPR Cas-9 and others making their way into agriculture, what happens to turf? How does fertility shift? You're exactly right, formulations will change... even much faster than 5 or 10 years.


----------



## Green

thegrassfactor said:


> With CRSPR Cas-9 and others making their way into agriculture, what happens to turf? How does fertility shift? You're exactly right, formulations will change... even much faster than 5 or 10 years.


TTTF that can handle fairway height, anyone? I bet it's coming. Turf-type Rye-Fescue (TTRF)? Ditto!

Interesting times for sure, and not just in plant science/turf/fertility. A great time to be in our early 30s...

Now, you've inspired me to invent something, too.

Cheers!


----------



## Green

thegrassfactor said:


> My favorite thing about this industry is that I'm forever a student. What I think I know now changes day by day. As I learn, as the consumer learns, as the professional learns, the product will evolve. If there's anything I've learned in this process to now - still 1 month out from turning the lights on - it's evolve, adapt, and execute. Perfection is not reality.


It's all a giant experiment, a giant feedback system in which we live, that we call life...

Congrats on establishing your little slice of it, man!


----------



## adgattoni

Green said:


> thegrassfactor said:
> 
> 
> 
> With CRSPR Cas-9 and others making their way into agriculture, what happens to turf? How does fertility shift? You're exactly right, formulations will change... even much faster than 5 or 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> TTTF that can handle fairway height, anyone? I bet it's coming. Turf-type Rye-Fescue (TTRF)? Ditto!
> 
> Interesting times for sure, and not just in plant science/turf/fertility. A great time to be in our early 30s...
> 
> Now, you've inspired me to invent something, too.
> 
> Cheers!
Click to expand...

There are a few folks on here running TTTF at close to fairway height. @g-man I think is around 3/4 inch.


----------



## XiolaOne

Something I could put down every 4 months: fert, micros, humic/kelp would be great


----------



## friscolawner

I had very limited knowledge about Lawn Care,I'm engineer. But keep learning..

I like to read, ask, test, finally learn with in several experiments.
Because of that, i like that forum. Here members sharing direct knowledge or experiments...Mostly with pictures, etc..

But looks like in this subject more about marketing...

Product is not ready, there is no used one, without any result price is higher, etc etc..

I hope Admins should thing a rule for this kind of things.....

About carbon-x, i will not use it. When starts selling in stores, then rated with many individuals, maybe. 
Same for RGS, Air8, etc....


----------



## high leverage

Carbon x, Screamin Green, Snake oil, etc..... Show me proof, show me academic studies. As a commercial applicator I'll stick with the proven products. You have to realize that everything you watch on Youtube is there for a reason. Form GCI Turf to the Grass Factor it's always about the money.


----------



## jonthepain

Haters gonna hate

If you knew Matt, you'd know that he's all about the science.

I am also a commercial applicator, since 1985. Matt's vision with this stuff was to provide a complete product at an affordable price point for LCO's. What he's come up with contains what I am currently applying in one homogeneous prill. This saves me time and money as the season goes by.

Sure, everything everywhere is about the money, however, Matt's inital motivation is about the science and stewardship.

I don't begrudge him or anybody compensation for their efforts.


----------



## ABC123

For one aspect understanding how some of these properties interact with eachother in the soil takes a much higher understanding of soil biology. There marketing this as another tool to improve soil but not a one product fits all type application. As he mentions that this is just another wrench in the toolbox and I couldn't agree more.

Can't wait to see if you do any studies on this with test plots.


----------



## jonthepain

Yup, good to have another tool. Some people "get it," and some don't.

I finished my second course of radiation treatments on Friday. I probably won't be doing test properties or any kind of lawn care this coming season. Maybe 2020. We'll just have to see.

I had planned on picking up a pallet or two of carbon-x for testing in 2019, but it doesn't look like it's in the cards at this point.


----------



## houstongrassnerd

friscolawner said:


> I had very limited knowledge about Lawn Care,I'm engineer. But keep learning..
> 
> I like to read, ask, test, finally learn with in several experiments.
> Because of that, i like that forum. Here members sharing direct knowledge or experiments...Mostly with pictures, etc..
> 
> But looks like in this subject more about marketing...
> 
> Product is not ready, there is no used one, without any result price is higher, etc etc..
> 
> I hope Admins should thing a rule for this kind of things.....
> 
> About carbon-x, i will not use it. When starts selling in stores, then rated with many individuals, maybe.
> Same for RGS, Air8, etc....


 You said it best... you have little knowledge about lawn care.


----------



## g-man

@houstongrassnerd we all started not knowing about lawn care and soils. It is the pursuit of knowledge via reading, sharing experiences and constantly continuing to explore new approaches that we grow in the collective lawn care knowledge. We strive for an inclusive community at TLF and welcome all members regardless of their previous lawn care knowledge. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## craigk

I'm trying to figure out the degree to which CarbonX will replace other NExt products as I plan for next year. I know the CarbonX has 1 oz RGS/1000, so I can calculate that amount into my use of additional RGS. However, I can't figure out how much CarbonX has in the areas of micronutrients and humic acid in order to figure out how much additional micro 0-0-2 or Humic 12 I should add. Does anyone know those amounts?


----------



## adgattoni

craigk said:


> I'm trying to figure out the degree to which CarbonX will replace other NExt products as I plan for next year. I know the CarbonX has 1 oz RGS/1000, so I can calculate that amount into my use of additional RGS. However, I can't figure out how much CarbonX has in the areas of micronutrients and humic acid in order to figure out how much additional micro 0-0-2 or Humic 12 I should add. Does anyone know those amounts?


FYI MicroGreen has 8% humic & 2% kelp already (RGS has 6/3, respectively). I'm thinking about going with just that instead of buying more of the 4-packs. That could eliminate my need to apply both RGS and FEature, for example, consolidating products and reducing costs.


----------



## JohnP

friscolawner said:


> I had very limited knowledge about Lawn Care,I'm engineer. But keep learning..
> 
> I like to read, ask, test, finally learn with in several experiments.
> Because of that, i like that forum. Here members sharing direct knowledge or experiments...Mostly with pictures, etc..
> 
> But looks like in this subject more about marketing...
> 
> Product is not ready, there is no used one, without any result price is higher, etc etc..
> 
> I hope Admins should thing a rule for this kind of things.....
> 
> About carbon-x, i will not use it. When starts selling in stores, then rated with many individuals, maybe.
> Same for RGS, Air8, etc....


You understand this is just entering production, so what you're asking....for information from people having used it, it's just not possible.

It's like before there was a Tesla car on the road people were excited about it and preordered it, but a test drive for the average person wasn't an option.

Price also isn't higher when you compare it on the per thousand square feet. A single roll of paper towels at the gas station is more expensive than a 30 pack at the bulk warehouse store.

I'm going 100% Carbon X in 2019. In 2020 and 2021 I hope you take the time to see what people like I are doing with Carbon X.


----------



## JohnP

adgattoni said:


> craigk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out the degree to which CarbonX will replace other NExt products as I plan for next year. I know the CarbonX has 1 oz RGS/1000, so I can calculate that amount into my use of additional RGS. However, I can't figure out how much CarbonX has in the areas of micronutrients and humic acid in order to figure out how much additional micro 0-0-2 or Humic 12 I should add. Does anyone know those amounts?
> 
> 
> 
> FYI MicroGreen has 8% humic & 2% kelp already (RGS has 6/3, respectively). I'm thinking about going with just that instead of buying more of the 4-packs. That could eliminate my need to apply both RGS and FEature, for example, consolidating products and reducing costs.
Click to expand...

I'm ditching the RGS apps since it is in the Carbon X. I'm going to also scratch my plans for semi regular liquid iron as CX also has iron. I'll invest the difference in things like PGR and do more humic12/air8/002 apps.

You could get in on the big LCN Black Friday deal - they're all $10 off and an extra $5 off with his *cousineddie* coupon and get "Cousin of Carbon X" pack.


----------



## PA Lawn Guy

JohnP said:


> Price also isn't higher when you compare it on the per thousand square feet.


I'm not sure that's true, apples to apples. I.e pound of N/M versus pound of N/M.

To be honest I am skeptical of the whole "you can apply less N in total with this product because of x, y, z" - it comes across (to me) as an easy "adjustment" to keep the cost per thousand from being way over market vs. competitors.

I am looking forward to seeing and reading people's results with the product in 2019 - not a "hater" here. Just FYI.


----------



## thegrassfactor

high leverage said:


> Carbon x, Screamin Green, Snake oil, etc..... Show me proof, show me academic studies. As a commercial applicator I'll stick with the proven products. You have to realize that everything you watch on Youtube is there for a reason. Form GCI Turf to the Grass Factor it's always about the money.





friscolawner said:


> I had very limited knowledge about Lawn Care,I'm engineer. But keep learning..
> 
> I like to read, ask, test, finally learn with in several experiments.
> Because of that, i like that forum. Here members sharing direct knowledge or experiments...Mostly with pictures, etc..
> 
> But looks like in this subject more about marketing...
> 
> Product is not ready, there is no used one, without any result price is higher, etc etc..
> 
> I hope Admins should thing a rule for this kind of things.....
> 
> About carbon-x, i will not use it. When starts selling in stores, then rated with many individuals, maybe.
> Same for RGS, Air8, etc....


Yikes, that's pretty painful to read!

@high leverage Carbon based fertility isn't exactly a new concept, but it is getting a lot more attention recently, especially given the state of the industry. You may not be feeling it in your area, but in many places, the pressure we're facing from neighbors, community acitivists, etc has been damaging.

Companies such as Lebanon Turf, Andersons, Clarus (Screamin' Green), and Anuvia, have been dumping tons and tons of money into University research regarding carbon based fertility.

https://www.claruschoice.com/clarus-technology/research/
https://www.claruschoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nutrientsplus_research_summary.pdf
https://assets.andersonsplantnutrient.com/pdf/2018_Pro_Turf_Ornamental_Brochure_L17_web.pdf
https://www.lebanonturf.com/education/the-value-of-humate
https://www.lebanonturf.com/education/seaweed-extract-and-seaweed-meal-as-ingredients-in-horticultural-products
http://www.anuviaplantnutrients.com/product/professional-turf/

Sans Clarus, these are the biggest companies in the industry. There's a reason they've dumped half a billion dollars combined into research and product development in the realm of carbon based fertilizers and biostimulants. We are under pressure to do _more_ with _less_.

IMO, if our industry is to persevere, we must adapt and evolve our current practices to have a more sustainable approach. It's a buzzword often heard, but the reality behind it is if we continue to run pure excess, eventually it will be taken away from us. See phosphorous, for example.

Also, on a much larger scale, carbon based fertility is the whole premise behind no-till farming. It's preserving and improving the soil function through the root cycling effect.

Here's a video I did for all about the money:





@friscolawner And you're right, I'm in a tough position because of how few people have actually used it. But if we look at it from an ingredient perspective, there is science to back up each of the components. Remember, I designed this fertilizer to suit my own needs, so I took the best of each ingredients that I have used and had great success with, and combined them into a single fertilizer. Again, the goal was to satisfy my needs.

Regarding the components:
AMS: agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-bac223a9.../567_576.pdf
Also, this video I did for always the money:




Micronutrients: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/holen/article/1989sep3.pdf
Organic Inputs: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/tgtre/article/1996jun1a.pdf
Potassium: http://www.ipni.net/publication/bet...9126185257D31005E9FF7/$FILE/ BC-1994-3 p6.pdf
Humic & Kelp: mogic.org/wp-content/uploads/page/8/mogic-biostim-greens-ervin.pptx

Biochar : http://www.cege.umn.edu/news-events/in-the-news/Fall2017/Behrens-Biochar-NatrComm.html,https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01123-0

Feel free to join us over in the Discordhttps://discord.gg/HFvSF53 chat too. We get pretty in-depth on topics ranging from herbicides, to soils, to life in general.


----------



## JohnP

PA Lawn Guy said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Price also isn't higher when you compare it on the per thousand square feet.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that's true, apples to apples. I.e pound of N/M versus pound of N/M.
> 
> To be honest I am skeptical of the whole "you can apply less N in total with this product because of x, y, z" - it comes across (to me) as an easy "adjustment" to keep the cost per thousand from being way over market vs. competitors.
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing and reading people's results with the product in 2019 - not a "hater" here. Just FYI.
Click to expand...

I don't need a 42 ounce steak if I balance my meals for the day right. Same applies when feeding your lawn. I'm growing grass, not hay. I'll be for sure keeping a good record of my 2019 season in my journal online here. Right now, my lawn looks like hell. Absolute garbage. Carbon X will be the big boy for my N in 2019. Anything else that has N that gets applied will be incidental. I'll be doing a fancy soil health test before and after as well. Look me up this time next year to see what's going on.


----------



## jonthepain

> if we look at it from an ingredient perspective, there is science to back up each of the components. Remember, I designed this fertilizer to suit my own needs, so I took the best of each ingredients that I have used and had great success with, and combined them into a single fertilizer.


In a nutshell


----------



## houstongrassnerd

g-man said:



> @houstongrassnerd we all started not knowing about lawn care and soils. It is the pursuit of knowledge via reading, sharing experiences and constantly continuing to explore new approaches that we grow in the collective lawn care knowledge. We strive for an inclusive community at TLF and welcome all members regardless of their previous lawn care knowledge. Let's keep it that way.


Maybe I read it wrong, but it sounded to me like GCF and Carbon x were being insinuated as marketing scams by someone that has 0 experience with them. If that isn't the case, then I apologize- if it is, then I stand by my comment.


----------



## Green

I feel like Carbon-x is going to be far superior to full or near full synthetic programs, which (Matt, correct me if I'm wrong) most industry pros doing home lawns are currently using due to pricing and material volume considerations.


----------



## JustGW

The thing that I can truly respect about Matt Martin [@grassfactor] and the way he has run Carbon-X and Grassfactor from the beginning is that he has always come from an educational standpoint first trying to bring the homeowner up to speed on the 'WHY' behind all of the products. I can see where some come from in seeming salesy but he comes with the receipts all too often to prove his results with unbiased research into the underlying ingredients.


----------



## adgattoni

JohnP said:


> I'll be for sure keeping a good record of my 2019 season in my journal online here. Right now, my lawn looks like hell. Absolute garbage. Carbon X will be the big boy for my N in 2019. Anything else that has N that gets applied will be incidental. I'll be doing a fancy soil health test before and after as well. Look me up this time next year to see what's going on.


IMO something like this could be more impactful if say, @Ware ran this program. We could see what a top tier lawn does traditionally maintained vs. on CarbonX. If it makes a visual difference or stays the same with less input, I think that is more definitive that the results are from the CarbonX vs. simply being more mindful/present in the lawn. Going from garbage to gorgeous in a year makes me think: "he could've done X% of that just by sharpening his mower blades, cutting more frequently, and using a Lowe's 10-10-10 markdown special."


----------



## iFisch3224

Finally got through all 6 pages - and a solid read at that.

I'll leave most of my opinions out of this - while it is a discussion, it is one behind a keyboard.

What I can formulate is my own conclusions that:

Proper education leads to better practices - education, and educating consumers can be a timely and costly investment

Combine proper tools/products and knowledge lead to better results

What I have gained through 2018 is enormous. Just take a look at my own lawn journal for pictures from 2017 with inadequate knowledge, improper techniques, and no knowledge, to what I believe is a beautiful lawn (in progress, not complete) in less than 6 months. Nearly from the get-go, I was totally behind the "less is more" ideology, and have actually used less product this year then I did in the prior year, and achieved results far greater then I thought I could accomplish in the few months I've been here. I don't need to "sell" anyone on anything - the results speak for themselves, and I completely understand the hesitation of many people.

At the end of the day, it costs $65 to "try" out for your self, on your lawn, in your region, and you can see the results first hand. I also correlate this to working out, dieting, etc. What works for me and my body, may or may not work for you. At absolute worst, you're out $65 - not the end of the world. I would take an educated guess and say most people on this forum have some form of disposable income. Ever spend $65 on a steak, and didn't think it was worth it? You wouldn't know until you tried...

I for one, enjoy trying new things, experimenting (ala PGR on St Aug, "less is more", etc) and learning first hand, in addition to what other valuable knowledge I can gain here from others with significantly more knowledge in the field than myself.

I am not a fan boy of anyone or anything - I am a "fan" of what works for me, and that's it. Like everyone else here, I am here to learn, to educate and understand practices, principles, and theories and apply them and see what works for my situation. If it doesn't, I move on.


----------



## JohnP

adgattoni said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be for sure keeping a good record of my 2019 season in my journal online here. Right now, my lawn looks like hell. Absolute garbage. Carbon X will be the big boy for my N in 2019. Anything else that has N that gets applied will be incidental. I'll be doing a fancy soil health test before and after as well. Look me up this time next year to see what's going on.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO something like this could be more impactful if say, @Ware ran this program. We could see what a top tier lawn does traditionally maintained vs. on CarbonX. If it makes a visual difference or stays the same with less input, I think that is more definitive that the results are from the CarbonX vs. simply being more mindful/present in the lawn. Going from garbage to gorgeous in a year makes me think: "he could've done X% of that just by sharpening his mower blades, cutting more frequently, and using a Lowe's 10-10-10 markdown special."
Click to expand...

My yard isn't garbage because I didn't/couldn't take care of it.

It looks like garbage because my reno was rained out. Constantly. Most the seed either washed away or rotted. I sharpen my blades. Pre emergent. Post emergent. Fungicides. I'm on it. Weather was my foe.

I'm far from top tier but don't assume garbage looking lawn means I neglect it.

Maybe you can pay for Ware to do it. In the mean time I'm paying to do the full soil health testing in all the areas of my lawn, 150# of Carbon X and another round of testing at the end of the season. I imagine season 2 of CX will be where it really shines.

Or maybe you can do it to your own lawn and make your own decision.


----------



## Pete1313

JohnP said:


> In the mean time I'm paying to do the full soil health testing in all the areas of my lawn, 150# of Carbon X and another round of testing at the end of the season. I imagine season 2 of CX will be where it really shines.


@JohnP, out of curiosity, what is the full soil health testing? Is it a standard soil test from a lab such as Waypoint? Or is there something more I am missing?

I was really on the fence for using Carbon-X for next year. It seems like an interesting product and even pre-ordered a pallet, but then cancelled it. For me the reason to not try it was the percentage of quick release N is too high(I believe over 65%) and about 45% of that is from urea(if my numbers are correct).


----------



## osuturfman

Pete1313 said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time I'm paying to do the full soil health testing in all the areas of my lawn, 150# of Carbon X and another round of testing at the end of the season. I imagine season 2 of CX will be where it really shines.
> 
> 
> 
> @JohnP, out of curiosity, what is the full soil health testing? Is it a standard soil test from a lab such as Waypoint? Or is there something more I am missing?
> 
> I was really on the fence for using Carbon-X for next year. It seems like an interesting product and even pre-ordered a pallet, but then cancelled it. For me the reason to not try it was the percentage of quick release N is too high(I believe over 65%) and about 45% of that is from urea(if my numbers are correct).
Click to expand...

Too high on a scale of what?


----------



## iFisch3224

Pete1313 said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time I'm paying to do the full soil health testing in all the areas of my lawn, 150# of Carbon X and another round of testing at the end of the season. I imagine season 2 of CX will be where it really shines.
> 
> 
> 
> For me the reason to not try it was the percentage of quick release N is too high(I believe over 65%) and about 45% of that is from urea(if my numbers are correct).
Click to expand...

I can possibly understand that - at least where I think you're going with it - what exactly do you mean it has to much quick release? I don't know enough to fully understand what I'm going to say next, and I'm certain a few more, will happily chime in and educate me....

What's the difference between a urea-based (say same N/M [percentages for comparison]) of a prill that has to be broken down over the course of days or weeks, or however long the total degradation/release of the prill is, compared to say a urea-based liquid fertilizer you put down in a liquid form?

Isn't the prill, ideal - so it degrades in different stages/coatings to release nutrients at different times vs say a liquid application of the same thing? I'm trying to write down what I have in my head, and since it doesn't make full sense to me yet, it can be difficult to put into words - so hopefully this makes sense...


----------



## Pete1313

osuturfman said:


> Too high on a scale of what?


Sorry to confuse, nothing wrong with quick release N per se, but for me I am trying not to use that high of a number in my granular program next year.


----------



## iFisch3224

Pete1313 said:


> osuturfman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too high on a scale of what?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to confuse, nothing wrong with quick release N per se, but for me I am trying not to use that high of a number in my granular program next year.
Click to expand...

What are you using currently and in the foreseeable future?


----------



## JohnP

Pete1313 said:


> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the mean time I'm paying to do the full soil health testing in all the areas of my lawn, 150# of Carbon X and another round of testing at the end of the season. I imagine season 2 of CX will be where it really shines.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnP, out of curiosity, what is the full soil health testing? Is it a standard soil test from a lab such as Waypoint? Or is there something more I am missing?
> 
> I was really on the fence for using Carbon-X for next year. It seems like an interesting product and even pre-ordered a pallet, but then cancelled it. For me the reason to not try it was the percentage of quick release N is too high(I believe over 65%) and about 45% of that is from urea(if my numbers are correct).
Click to expand...

@Pete1313 I told @Ridgerunner to tell me what soil test would he be interested in seeing as a before/after with a full season of only Carbon X. I like Midwest Labs, and he asked me to see if they offered a test to measure soil microbial health/soil biology. It's a carbon burst test called the Solvita CO2-C test. I heard back:



> We do run a CO2 burst test to measure microbial activity. We use an instrument to read the emissions and not the paddle of the Solvita method. That test is included in our Soil Health Packages




*Edit:* So my plan is to pull soil test plugs before I do my pre emergent in 2019.


----------



## Ridgerunner

I suggested the Solvita and N tests (both NH4 and NO3) Ideally, these test would be done multiple times at regular intervals (I probably shouldn't have discouraged @JohnP from submitting a sample for testing this Fall, but I was trying to be mindful of the costs)during the growing season, but cost would be prohibitive.
The suggestion is based on two premises and a method to attempt to test/measure them:
1. Much of the plant available nutrients in soil is due in part to soil biological activity. Studies have shown that soil additions of biochar have increased soil biological levels. 
2. Some studies suggest that biochar may enhance the retention of nutrients. (i.e. reduce leaching either by increasing CEC sites or via the "nook and cranny" hypothesis that result in holding nutrients in the root zone in a plant available form.)
The Solvita Carbon Burst test should reflect any change/increase in soil biology and the Haney test (or alternatively most likely any saturated paste test, or to a lesser extent a standard soil test) could reflect any attendant change in soil solution nutrient levels (Primary, Secondary and Trace). As the major component of CarbonX is Nitrogen, the NH4 and NO3 tests would track plant N changes and availability.
Ideally, of course, it would be helpful if there was a control and another plot that received the same quantity and proportion of nutrients sans the biochar and RGS components of CarbonX, but a simple "before and after" comparison may produce some interesting results while avoiding testing that would easily exceed hundreds of dollars in costs.


----------



## osuturfman

Just remember to include an untreated check and test that area as well.


----------



## osuturfman

My post above didn't include a word about untreated checks vs. control plots. Please see below.

An untreated check is just that, an untreated area where you are only looking at visual response compared to treated areas surrounding it. A control is tested ahead of time to establish a baseline and then monitored along with measurements of treated areas.

In this case, I would recommend a control plot.


----------



## JohnP

Ridgerunner said:


> Ideally, these test would be done multiple times at regular intervals (I probably shouldn't have discouraged @JohnP from submitting a sample for testing this Fall, but I was trying to be mindful of the costs)during the growing season, but cost would be prohibitive.


I'm down for additional tests @Ridgerunner.

2018 soil temps were ready early for pre em. First week of April. I don't know what 2019 will bring but are you thinking regular as in monthly?

Also too much of my lawn touches each other and I am looking to really throw down. I have a need and denying myself from spreading CX on any section of my lawn just...I can't guarantee I won't do it.


----------



## PA Lawn Guy

JohnP said:


> PA Lawn Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Price also isn't higher when you compare it on the per thousand square feet.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that's true, apples to apples. I.e pound of N/M versus pound of N/M.
> 
> To be honest I am skeptical of the whole "you can apply less N in total with this product because of x, y, z" - it comes across (to me) as an easy "adjustment" to keep the cost per thousand from being way over market vs. competitors.
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing and reading people's results with the product in 2019 - not a "hater" here. Just FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a 42 ounce steak if I balance my meals for the day right. Same applies when feeding your lawn. I'm growing grass, not hay. I'll be for sure keeping a good record of my 2019 season in my journal online here. Right now, my lawn looks like hell. Absolute garbage. Carbon X will be the big boy for my N in 2019. Anything else that has N that gets applied will be incidental. I'll be doing a fancy soil health test before and after as well. Look me up this time next year to see what's going on.
Click to expand...

I'm not explaining myself well, I apologize.

If I were looking to apply 1 pound N per rolling month, I would still target that amount even if using Carbon X.

I have read about biochar and how it can be beneficial. A local biochar producer recommends top dressing a lawn with 1/8th inch biochar to observe optimal benefits. I am considering trying that for my own lawn.

A bag of Carbon X is advertised to cover 22,000 sq ft (half acre) per app. How much biochar is in one bag? 20 pounds? Less? Will someone see meaningful biochar-related benefits from a couple apps per season? Can't hurt, of course, but I am doubtful the average DIYer winds up applying enough biochar to see causal results from it.

To me, Carbon X is a neat approach, and I hope it is successful for its inventors. At the DIYer price, I would pass, but each of us has different needs and that's why it's great to have myriad choices! :thumbup:


----------



## JohnP

PA Lawn Guy said:


> I'm not explaining myself well, I apologize.
> 
> If I were looking to apply 1 pound N per rolling month, I would still target that amount even if using Carbon X.
> 
> I have read about biochar and how it can be beneficial. A local biochar producer recommends top dressing a lawn with 1/8th inch biochar to observe optimal benefits. I am considering trying that for my own lawn.
> 
> A bag of Carbon X is advertised to cover 22,000 sq ft (half acre) per app. How much biochar is in one bag? 20 pounds? Less? Will someone see meaningful biochar-related benefits from a couple apps per season? Can't hurt, of course, but I am doubtful the average DIYer winds up applying enough biochar to see causal results from it.
> 
> To me, Carbon X is a neat approach, and I hope it is successful for its inventors. At the DIYer price, I would pass, but each of us has different needs and that's why it's great to have myriad choices! :thumbup:


100% agree, rising tide floats all boats. More options is never a bad thing and it's awesome that there are options out there for everyone to find and work into their program. It's also awesome that there are enough choices out there that a discussion can exist about the pros and cons of each!

However I'm going with Carbon X for more reasons than just biochar. I got a 55 gallon drum of biochar earlier this fall and will probably go for more next year. Applying to the gardens. Carbon X also has RGS in it, Matt Martin was talkin' in the Discord the other day about a VA Tech study in which seeweed extract helped increase root mass and stress tolerance. Carbon X is just a *hair* off from the study. I forget the rates and the more specifics but that's what I remember. *Edit:* So I'll take the difference in buying a jug of RGS and put it in something else.

Now for me, if that all wasn't enough it also directly supports someone that I know and is active in the community. Puts food in his kid's belly and keeps them warm at night. That's worth a bag.


----------



## Ridgerunner

John, I'll preface this by saying that I would defer to @osuturfman or another member who has professional training and educational background in turf science (agronomy etc,).
It's not that there would be no value in just monitoring changes in the soil and turf due to a treatment, but incorporating a control helps immensely in making more valid assessments. Using a control helps to eliminate the possibility that the results observed were due to the applied treatment and would not have occurred in the absence of the treatment (or, depending on the "control" used, a specific component of the treatment).


----------



## stotea

osuturfman said:


> Just remember to include an untreated check and test that area as well.


Yes, this is what seemingly everyone - even on this site - seems to forget: a control. Without it, all you can prove is a coincidence and your results are scientifically invalid.

I look forward to seeing how this product turns out. I'm considering switching to one of Sustane's products, but CX could change that.


----------



## cousineau18

Jconnelly6b said:


> dacoyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am excited also was reading about it the other day and was sad that its not out yet. We (TLF) should split a pallet!
> 
> 
> 
> I just ordered an entire pallet for us Jersey guys :bandit:
Click to expand...

I got my hands on 8 bags, just put my first 1#N down today....how are you liking it so far?


----------



## Jconnelly6b

The results are fantastic I think better than any of us anticipated!


----------

