# Carbon-X Questions - How much slow release N?



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Just wondering a few things...

How much of the N in the 24-0-4 bag is slowly available N (or controlled release)? 
I'm not seeing it itemized on the actual label on the bag. 
I did some digging, and noticed this thread: https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6290&start=60#p117024, where it's stated by Matt that approx. 50% of the "blend" or final "mix" in the bag is slow release. I'm not sure what that means in relation to how much of the actual Nitrogen is slow release. I also note that in this video, Matt mentions at 4:53 that approx. 30% of the N is slow release: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4EL00StLqs

Also, MOP is the only listed K-source. 
So, no SOP in current batches??

Thanks in advance to Matt or whomever answers these questions!


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Still wondering what the slow release percentage is. There probably aren't many people who can answer this definitively, so I'm going to put out a mention to the very busy @thegrassfactor. Thanks in advance, Matt. This info will be useful to many...


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Surely there is an answer to this...


----------



## adgattoni (Oct 3, 2017)

I think the base biochar product has a low nitrogen content (8%?), but is also somewhat slow release due to being blended into the biochar (the "new technology" they are working to get patented). To boost the N content to make it an efficient product for applicators, they blend it with a coated urea, which is also a controlled release N. I think a majority of the 24% N in CarbonX is the coated urea.

I don't know exactly how fast the biochar component breaks down, but the entire bag is controlled release in some fashion. Regardless of the slow release % on that, 2/3 of the N is controlled release N via coated urea.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

adgattoni said:


> I don't know exactly how fast the biochar component breaks down, but the entire bag is controlled release in some fashion. Regardless of the slow release % on that, 2/3 of the N is controlled release N via coated urea.


It very well could be. But where is the 2/3 (67%) figure coming from? Where did you get this from?

Also, I assume all of the AMS that is blended in (any of it which isn't part of the biochar complex) is uncoated. Coated AMS is not common. I'm assuming this, though, as the current label makes no mention of slow release N.

There are definitely white prills...which could be uncoated urea and AMS. The off-white ones are obviously the coated urea.


----------



## adgattoni (Oct 3, 2017)

Green said:


> adgattoni said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know exactly how fast the biochar component breaks down, but the entire bag is controlled release in some fashion. Regardless of the slow release % on that, 2/3 of the N is controlled release N via coated urea.
> ...


I implied the 2/3 figure based on the base biochar product being 8% nitrogen and the entire bag being 24% nitrogen. The white prills are YaraVera AMIDAS, according to Matt in this thread. It's a homogenous prill of urea and AMS, but upon further research I can't find whether the prills are coated or not (they certainly LOOK coated, but the documentation I can find doesn't mention a coating).


----------



## j4c11 (Apr 30, 2017)

If you go by the label, you got 6% N from ammonium sulfate, 2% iron from ferrous sulfate, and 14% sulfur. So you got about 11% sulfur unaccounted for, just ballparking it. Unless there's other sources of sulfur in the bag not listed on the label, I would assume it's coating.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

adgattoni said:


> I implied the 2/3 figure based on the base biochar product being 8% nitrogen and the entire bag being 24% nitrogen. The white prills are YaraVera AMIDAS, according to Matt in this thread. It's a homogenous prill of urea and AMS, but upon further research I can't find whether the prills are coated or not (they certainly LOOK coated, but the documentation I can find doesn't mention a coating).


Thanks. Even more info here on that: https://thelawnforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3280&p=210575#p210575
Here, Matt states it makes of 50% of the bag (by weight I assume). That is very useful info we can use to do some calculations:



thegrassfactor said:


> The white prills in our bag is manufactured by YaraVera and is called AMIDAS (https://www.yara.us/crop-nutrition/fertilizer-products/yaravera/yaravera-amidas-40-0-0/), which is a homogeneous urea/AMS which alone should provide results assuming nitrogen provides response on your lawn. It makes up 50% of the bag.





j4c11 said:


> If you go by the label, you got 6% N from ammonium sulfate, 2% iron from ferrous sulfate, and 14% sulfur. So you got about 11% sulfur unaccounted for, just ballparking it. Unless there's other sources of sulfur in the bag not listed on the label, I would assume it's coating.


Good detective work, j4c11. I think we have a good starting point now to crunch some numbers.

This quote from the Yara site should also help us:

"YaraVera® Amidas Turf™ (40-0-0 5.5 S) is a homogeneous granular fertilizer containing urea and ammonium sulfate. Its 7.3:1 N to S ratio is optimal for turf fertilization. By combining urea and ammonium sulfate into one particle, N and S uptake by plant roots is increased compared to physical blends."


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Another piece of info on the Yara, from the webpage for their cropland version (which I assume has the same specs as their turf version):

"YaraVera AMIDAS has 40% nitrogen and 5.5% sulphur in the same granule. It's totally water soluble and very uniform in granule size. It is a truly homogeneous product that ensures uniformity of application. The ammonium nitrogen and sulphate sulphur are immediately available to plants. AMIDAS's N:S ratio of 7.3:1 is ideal for most crops."

And their label (turf version): https://www.yara.us/contentassets/280676bbae1c466799e9d22b57225584/bag-labels/yv-amidas_turfgrade-50lb-bag-r7.pdf/

Here is their analysis from the above file:
Guaranteed Analysis
Total Nitrogen (N)..............40%
35% Urea Nitrogen
5% Ammoniacal Nitrogen
Sulfur (S) .........................5.5%
5.5% Combined Sulfur
Derived from Urea and Ammonium Sulfate.

*Takeaway: There is no slow release in it, so all the slow release comes from Carbon Earth fertilizer; none of it is from the "white stuff" (YaraVera Amidas Turf) that is blended into Carbon-X.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

So assuming the biochar fertilizer product that Carbon Earth makes is 8% N, it would provide 0.08 x 50 = 4 lbs N for every 50 lbs of material. But though bags are 50 lbs, there are supposed to be 25 lbs of Carbon Earth fert in them, so we divide that by 2. So, 2.0 lbs N.

If the Yara stuff is 40% N, it would contribute another 20 lbs N per 50 lbs of material (same math as above). But if there are 25 lbs of it per bag, it's contributing 10 lbs of N to each 50-lb bag.

This would mean each 50-lb bag has 12 total lbs of N. Let's double check the math to verify this:
0.24 x 50 = 12. Perfect!

So, assuming all of the 2.0 lbs N is slow release, and none of the 10 lbs N is slow release, that would make 1/6th or 16.67% of the N in the bag slow release.

If someone can check my math for holes, or alternatively, verify it's correct, that would be good.

I also wonder if the quick release N in the bag acts a slower release N somehow because of the biochar it's blended with...


----------



## adgattoni (Oct 3, 2017)

@Green

If it's 50% of the bag and 40% nitrogen, the N in the bag from YaraVera is 20%. 50% of the 8% Carbon Earth biochar product is 4%. 20+4 = 24% N per the label.



j4c11 said:


> If you go by the label, you got 6% N from ammonium sulfate, 2% iron from ferrous sulfate, and 14% sulfur. So you got about 11% sulfur unaccounted for, just ballparking it. Unless there's other sources of sulfur in the bag not listed on the label, I would assume it's coating.


Carbon-X has Sulfate of Potash to get the potassium content, which adds some sulfur as well.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

adgattoni said:


> Green
> 
> If it's 50% of the bag and 40% nitrogen, the N in the bag from YaraVera is 20%. 50% of the 8% Carbon Earth biochar product is 4%. 20+4 = 24% N per the label.


And by extension, 4/24 = 0.1667, or 16.67% of the N is slow release.

You just verified my math was correct. Thanks.

So, 16.67% out of 100% (4% of the 24% total) is slow release, unless we're both missing something.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

@adgattoni, the Carbon-X label states:

17% urea N
6% ammoniacal N
1% WIN

17+6=23
24-3=1, not 2 as expected...
I assume the extra 1% N from AMS is part of the Carbon-Earth Biochar fert product complex. That squares with the 1% WIN remaining on the label (which presumably comes from chicken manure). 2-1= 1


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

I think this thread is very confusing. The product is 24 N. 8% comes from the biochar/chicken compost /SOP/RGS/iron. 24 - 8 = 16%. This is the yara and it is fast.

The XGRN product is 8-1-8 and it is the biochar/ chicken manure/... prill in a smaller prill size and I think it has more iron %. I like the 818 product.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

g-man said:


> I think this thread is very confusing. The product is 24 N. 8% comes from the biochar/chicken compost /SOP/RGS/iron. 24 - 8 = 16%. This is the yara and it is fast.
> 
> The XGRN product is 8-1-8 and it is the biochar/ chicken manure/... prill in a smaller prill size and I think it has more iron %. I like the 818 product.


Yeah...you just managed to summarize the entire thread in a couple of sentences. Lol.

But one little adjustment...it's not just 8/24 if you're doing actual pounds of N per bag, because only half of the bag is from the 8. So it's 8/2/24 = 16.67 (ratio of Carbon fert N to total N in one bag; i.e. proportion of N that is Carbon Earth N). It's 1:6, (or 1+5 if you're British). 1/6th of the bag is Carbon Earth slow release N if we got the specs of the Yara product right (i.e. it being all fast release).

That said, I'm not 100% convinced yet that the Yara product is all fast release N. It's yellow. What does that mean, other than sulfur? (e.g. does that sulfur act as a slow release mechanism, too?)


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

adgattoni said:


> Carbon-X has Sulfate of Potash to get the potassium content, which adds some sulfur as well.


I swear my bag says Potassium Chloride...but I can't check at the moment.


----------



## j4c11 (Apr 30, 2017)

j4c11 said:


> If you go by the label, you got 6% N from ammonium sulfate, 2% iron from ferrous sulfate, and 14% sulfur. So you got about 11% sulfur unaccounted for, just ballparking it. Unless there's other sources of sulfur in the bag not listed on the label, I would assume it's coating.


This is actually wrong, ammonium sulfate has more sulfur than nitrogen, so there's only about 6% sulfur unaccounted. The Yara appears to be a mix of urea and ammonium sulfate, so all fast release, no coating.

There is no potassium sulfate in it, the label says potassium chloride.


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

Since the summer the new stuff is using SOP.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

g-man said:


> Since the summer the new stuff is using SOP.


Got mine in July. It has MOP. Here's the label:


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

j4c11 said:


> j4c11 said:
> 
> 
> > If you go by the label, you got 6% N from ammonium sulfate, 2% iron from ferrous sulfate, and 14% sulfur. So you got about 11% sulfur unaccounted for, just ballparking it. Unless there's other sources of sulfur in the bag not listed on the label, I would assume it's coating.
> ...


The Yara stuff is 5.5% Sulfur, btw. But remember it makes up only half the bag contents.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

https://extension.psu.edu/turfgrass-fertilization-a-basic-guide-for-professional-turfgrass-managers
https://ag.umass.edu/turf/best-management-practices-for-lawn-landscape-turf/soil-nutrient-management/nitrogen


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> https://extension.psu.edu/turfgrass-fertilization-a-basic-guide-for-professional-turfgrass-managers
> https://ag.umass.edu/turf/best-management-practices-for-lawn-landscape-turf/soil-nutrient-management/nitrogen


Yes, those are great resources. But what was the context of posting them here?


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

Did you bother to even scan the headings to the subsections or are you just trolling?
The Umass link:
"Know how to determine the SRN content of a fertilizer material."
Explains what to look for to determine the SRN content and how to calculate %.

The PSU link in general, but particularly starting at:
"Turfgrass Nitrogen Sources"
Explains which N sources are Fast release and and which are SRN.

One of them further explains that all WIN are slow release.

Hence per the label there is 17% Urea N, derived from Urea; there is 6% ammonical N derived from ammonium sulfate and there is chicken manure for the N and 1% WIN (most likely due to the chicken poo) Neither ammonium sulfate, nor urea, are listed in the PSU article as sources of SRN, but are on the Fast Release (WSN) list. So the only slow release listed is the 1% N. Per the label: 23% fast release (WSN) and 1% slow release (WIN).
As far as sulfur, the AMS and the Fe sulfate would contribute slightly over 7 lbs of sulfur or just under 15% of the bag and consequently, by labeling rule, is listed as 14%.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

@Ridgerunner, I have read sections of both in the past, and quickly skimmed them again after you posted. But they are long documents, and I wasn't sure what you were getting at exactly. Thanks for clarifying.

Regarding slow release Nitrogen, my understanding is that the Carbon Earth Biochar complex has a little AMS (plus a little chicken manure to hold it together), and that it's a slow release product.

But you're right the majority of the AMS is from the fast release prills, and that is consistent with the portion of the document you quoted above as well as your explanation. And since the company that makes those prills (Yara) doesn't list any slow release coatings, we can be certain they are entirely fast release N. Thanks.

And since you haven't spoken up about the math I did to find the proportion of slow release in the bag out of the total lbs of N in the bag, I'm going to assume you didn't find an issue with it. Remember, we're basing it on the fact that the Biochar complex is 8% N and makes up 50% of the bag weight. The math checked out against the fertilizer label for Carbon-X when I did it. I didn't do the math for Potassium (or Sulfur, which you did).

To summarize it in a condensed format:
Carbon Earth base material: 8% N: 50% the bag weight
8/2=4 (slow release)

Yara Amidas: 40% N: also 50% the bag weight
40/2=20 (fast release)

Added together for total N in the whole bag: 20+4= 24% N
Math checks out.

Proportion slow release N to total N: 4/24= 0.167
Or 16.7% slowly available N (out of 100%--this assumes you apply the product at 1 lb/M Nitrogen rate, or 4.17 lb/M of product).

And real quick: If it's 8% Potassium for the base, and that makes up half the bag weight, and the other half is 40-0-0, then the blend becomes an effective (8/2) + 0= 4% Potassium. This checks out against the analysis, too.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

> Carbon Earth base material: 8% N: 50% the bag weight
> 8/2=4 (slow release)


Nope.
The labeling rules/laws are the labeling rules/laws.
https://carbonearth.co/818finaldetail.jpg
Carbon Earth base material: 8% *Total* N, 2% of which is WIN/SRN: 50% the bag weight
*2/2=1 of SRN*. The other 23% of the 24-0-4 bag weight is fast release N.
Yes. I know Matt said 1/3 of the N (8% of 24%) is slow release and I don't want to put words into @thegrassfactor 's mouth, but I think he was probably referring to the effect of the high CEC of HA/FA and biochar to bind/hold the ammonium cation and reduce loss of N via leaching, however, that doesn't change the character of the AMS under labeling rules/laws. Matt can clarify if he so chooses, but the bag label identifies 1% (2% for 8-1-8) as SRN and the rules are the rules.


----------



## Virginiagal (Apr 24, 2017)

Ridgerunner resolved this. CarbonX has 17% urea nitrogen (from YARA AMIDAS), 6% ammoniacal nitrogen (3% from YARA AMIDAS, 3% from XGRN), 1% WIN (from poultry litter in XGRN). Only the poultry litter part is slow release. How will this affect how you use it? I assume it should be watered in and limited to 1 lb of nitrogen/1000 sq ft per month, perhaps divided up like 1/2 lb N/1000 sq ft every two weeks or 1/4 lb N/1000 sq ft every week.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Virginiagal said:


> Ridgerunner resolved this. CarbonX has 17% urea nitrogen (from YARA AMIDAS), 6% ammoniacal nitrogen (3% from YARA AMIDAS, 3% from XGRN), 1% WIN (from poultry litter in XGRN). Only the poultry litter part is slow release. How will this affect how you use it?


If this is the case, it dramatically changes my usage plan.

I had been under the assumption that the portion of AMS (6% or 3% N depending on how you look at it) that is complexed in with the Carbon Earth Biochar and held together using the chicken manure, was a controlled release AMS because of the biochar base. However, you guys are obviously correct in terms of labeling, because all it took was another look at the label for the 8-1-8, and I see what Ridgerunner wrote about the "label being the law" is correct...only 2% of the N in the 8-1-8 base is slow release per that product's label, and it all comes from the Biochar complex. Allyn Hane also said the same in a video I recently watched...he never mentioned some of the AMS being tied up in the complex...only the manure.

But does that extra 6% (in XGRN) or 3% (in C-X) AMS fast release Nitrogen behave like slow release???

If not, it changes things, for me, if the actual slow release N content is 1% in Carbon-X and 2% in the 8-1-8 as stated by law. In the 8-1-8, 2% is a significant amount of slow release N. But in the Carbon-X, 1% out of 24% is a small proportion.

Basically, this means I would be using Carbon-X as if I was using a traditional fast release urea/AMS blend with a little extra slow release kick thrown in.

If we're incorrect somehow (I actually hope we are), I hope @thegrassfactor will clarify. I've listened to his explanations in a number of posts, videos, and on the Carbon Earth site, but I feel like I'm still missing something about the mechanism and how the Nitrogen behaves.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> Yes. I know Matt said 1/3 of the N (8% of 24%) is slow release and I don't want to put words into @thegrassfactor 's mouth, but I think he was probably referring to the effect of the high CEC of HA/FA and biochar to bind/hold the ammonium cation and reduce loss of N via leaching...


Would you mind briefly expanding on this a bit more just from a chemical standpoint? My understanding is that once AMS gets hit by water, the ammonium(+) and SO4(-) go into solution and can be used in the plant. What does the biochar do exactly, and how does it do it?


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

It's pretty much as as I stated it. HA/FA and biochar possess high cation exchange capacity (like those of clay and stable OM) that can form weak electro-magnetic bonds with cations (Ca, Mg, K, etc) like ammonium that will hold the cation until it's exchanged with another cation and can move into the soil solution. Biochar also has nooks and crannies that may trap nutrients. Anything beyond that is conjecture. Evidently, although they might reduce N leaching, neither seems to have much affect on the availability of N in the way of a SRN effect per fertilizer testing standards.
You asked what amount of N in CX is SRN. It's 1%. That's as far as I am interested in going with this.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

7:00 in this video is a good starting point to understand this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db4BaKLnNy4

Also, if anyone wants to do their own research on these topics, you can look for studies online. As good a starting point as any would be one such as this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5310885/


----------



## JDgreen18 (Jun 14, 2018)

@Green this question was asked on Matt's live show tonight...
By weight of the bag 50% is slow.
By the analysis about 33% is slow. Because the AS is homogenized with organic matter and biochar. If you go on YouTube almost at the end of his show you can hear it in his words.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

JDgreen18 said:


> @Green this question was asked on Matt's live show tonight...
> By weight of the bag 50% is slow.
> By the analysis about 33% is slow. Because the AS is homogenized with organic matter and biochar. If you go on YouTube almost at the end of his show you can hear it in his words.


Thank you. I will listen. I actually tried to tune in while he was on thinking someone might ask, but my browser didn't cooperate. Makes sense that someone asked; a lot of people probably want to know the answers to similar questions. I will listen and try to understand and think about the answer until it makes sense to me. It's probably all in the context, and how the question is asked and answered...very few things in life have one single, straightforward correct answer, because the context in which the question is asked can vary. Maybe the way I posed the original question on here (in terms of fertilizer labeling) wasn't the best, most practical way to ask the question. We'll see...it should all make sense eventually. My goal is to not just get or figure out *an* answer to the question, but understand the answer and what it really means for my specific way of fertilizing.

Before I do, some assumptions from the above I need to get down on paper:
"By weight of the bag 50% is slow" - To me, this means the entire Carbon Earth Biochar complex is being considered slow.
"By the analysis about 33% is slow"
-Two statements I'll have to really think about. Hopefully listening will help.

Thanks again.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

So...after listening a bunch of times, here's what I'm taking away:

-Matt confirmed that they blend in 50% by weight (of the aforementioned fast-release stuff).

-The other 50% weight in the bag is considered a slow release fertilizer (that's the 8-1-8, assuming Carbon-X base material uses the same stuff as XGRN with the same specs. But it's an assumption that they're the same, because I don't think it has been confirmed yet that both products use the same base).

So, taking what I just wrote, if correct:

Why does the 8-1-8 guaranteed analysis list "2% slowly available Nitrogen from pasteurized poultry litter"? Maybe the regulatory agency that governs fertilizer labels doesn't recognize their new technology (AMS and chicken compost homogenized with biochar) as a slow release source because their labeling standards were created long before this sort of thing was being made. But it sounds like it actually is a new type of slow release source, and that was my understanding from the beginning when I first heard about Carbon Earth.

Let's ignore the official label and how it states slow release, and play with the numbers, assuming all the above is correct (it might not be, but let's assume and try it):

If 50% of the weight in the bag is made up of 8-1-8, there would be 25 lbs, and that bag would have 25x0.08= 2 lbs of N. But they add another 25 lbs of 40-0-0. That's 25x0.40= 10 lbs of N blended in. The total N in the bag is therefore 12 lbs. Let's see if this checks out or not:

A 24% N fertilizer requires 4.166666667 lbs of N per thousand square feet to get a pound of N on the ground.
50/4.1666666667=12 lbs of N in the bag. So the above has to be correct.

Moreover, if half of the fert per bag is 8-1-8 base material:
-That fraction is effectively 4% N by itself.
4/12=0.3333= 33%
This is where the number stated in tonight's video is coming from.

In summary: For whatever reason in terms of chemistry (Matt even stated it tonight, as @JDgreen18 pointed out), all of the 8% N in the base is considered slow release N.

Now the question becomes, how "slow release" is it? Since different slow release methods have different release characteristics. Note to self: read the study referenced at the following link; maybe it answers the question: http://www.cege.umn.edu/news-events/in-the-news/Fall2017/Behrens-Biochar-NatrComm.html


----------



## Virginiagal (Apr 24, 2017)

Green said:


> Let's ignore the official label and how it states slow release, and play with the numbers, assuming all the above is correct (it might not be, but let's assume and try it):
> 
> If 50% of the weight in the bag is made up of 8-1-8, there would be 25 lbs, and that bag would have 25x0.08= 2 lbs of N. But they add another 25 lbs of 40-0-0. That's 25x0.40= 10 lbs of N blended in. The total N in the bag is therefore 12 lbs. Let's see if this checks out or not:
> 
> ...


Even if the ammoniacal nitrogen and chicken litter in the 8-1-8 product are 100% slow release, they supply only 2 lb of the 12 lb of nitrogen in a 50 lb bag. That percentage (2/12) is 16.7%: not 33%. If you look at it another way, the 8-1-8 product supplies 4% nitrogen (3% ammoniacal, 1% WIN from chicken litter) where the total nitrogen is 24%. 4/24 is likewise 16.7%.


----------



## thegrassfactor (Apr 12, 2017)

So to clarify things, we do not claim the AMS from the amidas on the label. No real reason why, we just don't. The biochar portion actually contains 6% of the ammoniacal nitrogen from the ammonium sulfate. My dumb *** kept dividing 8/24 inlieu of halving it 4/24. So in terms of technicality, that would put it at 16.7%. In terms of practicality, I would reach out to someone who applied it against a control to monitor the release, which Allyn actually did at ~12+ weeks of discernible stand out pattern (on video) on St. Augustine, PPLM on fescue was ~8weeks of discernible stand out pattern against control, and bermuda has been ~6weeks of discernible stand out.

I have approached the AAPFCO about being granted labelling freedom to call what we homogenize with poultry manure and biochar "slow release" and was given a list of instructions on how I can present it to the board. I need about $80,000 before I can do that and, quite frankly, do not have that money. In terms of similarity, there is a company called Anuvia who essentially does something very similar with biosolids inlieu of biochar/poultry litter, and they had the funding to get that done. No body is producing a homogenized biochar, organic matter, NPK fertilizer right now so trying to rewrite labeling definitions isn't exactly easy for a broke start up.

Here is a study that talks about specifically co-composting biochar with manure and the effects it had on release.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01123-0

If you get into the technical details of this study, you'll find the portion where they used it in combination with NPK against an NPK control. You'll see data relating to co composting capturing nitrates as well as other ions in a capture/release model.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11080

And a snap shot:



I think those two studies can offer more of an explanation that I can and should be read and understood in order to firmly provide a definitive statement as to "slow release" characteristics of biochar or even our products. It's not black and white, as generated by results, or by definition.


----------



## Virginiagal (Apr 24, 2017)

@thegrassfactor Glad you're joining the conversation and trying to clarify things. I think there is still some confusion describing half of the ingredients of the 8-1-8 product. 8-1-8 has 6% ammoniacal nitrogen (from ammonium sulfate) and 2% WIN from chicken litter. Therefore a product containing half of that has 3% ammoniacal nitrogen and 1% WIN from the 8-1-8 product. That's 4%. The amidas product is 40% nitrogen, 35% urea and 5% ammoniacal (per amidas label). Half of that is 20% nitrogen, 17.5% urea and 2.5% ammoniacal. You need that 20% to add to the 4% from 8-1-8 to make the 24% you are claiming. You claim 17% urea (rounding down) and the 2.5% ammoniacal in the amidas product must be claimed (rounding up) as 3%.


----------



## thegrassfactor (Apr 12, 2017)

I'm not sure I see a question or what's being asked to clarify. Is the purpose of this conversation a clarification of labelling laws or a request for our exact formulation? I thought we've already done this?

Yes what you're saying is basically right but we don't formulate like "6% of this, 2% of that" so the actual percentage my be like 6.89% to buffer a margin of error because of the tolerance of a certain volumetric feeder or descending scale or load cell. Per labelling requirements, you typically round down. 30% of our analyses of CX register >26% N, 60% register at 25% N, 99% > 24% N. Based on equipment tolerances, we knew 24 was the target number to hit because we could consistently meet or exceed that product guarantee 99% of the time. So claiming 6% ammoniacal on the label was what we could guarantee because it's 99% 6+% ammoniacal N.

With the XGRN, about 90% of the time we test out as a 9-1-8 or greater. For marketing purposes and margin of error, we label it as an 8 1 8 (1:1 N:K is like watching a dirty movie to an old turf head)

With Xstart, it actually checks out at an 10-26-4, but for margin of error etc etc, we went with 8 -24-4 (2:6:1 sounds better than a 5:13:2 to an old turf head)

I hope that answers the question?


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

You may find some topical information here on this hypothesis:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275770714_Biochar_Effects_on_Crop_Yield
But you'll have to scan the study abstracts or synopsis.  
For instance: biochar co-composted with biosolids reduced crop yields by 28%, whereas biochar co-composted with poultry litter showed a positive increase of 28%.


----------



## Ridgerunner (May 16, 2017)

@thegrassfactor 
Humor an old man:


> If you get into the technical details of this study, you'll find the portion where they used it in combination with NPK against an NPK control. You'll see data relating to co composting capturing nitrates as well as other ions in a capture/release model.


I don't see that portion of the study within or linked to that paper you cited.

Secondly, you are required to subject your products (e.g. 8-1-8) to analysis, correct? What is the total analyzed N content? 24%? Do you have analysis results for the total amount of WSN %? If so, is the difference between Total N content and WSN content greater than 2%?


----------



## Virginiagal (Apr 24, 2017)

The problem I was addressing was that you said the biochar portion contains 6% ammoniacal. It is 3% because only half the bag has the biochar product. Also you said you weren't claiming the ammoniacal in the amidas product but you had to be claiming it to get to 24%. Since the point was that to clarify, those misstatements needed to be corrected. Thanks for doing so. I realize that each bag will not be exact. The original question is how much of nitrogen in the Carbon X product is slow release. If you are saying ALL of the nitrogen in biochar half is slow release, then it seems to be 16.7% slow release, 83.3% fast release. Going by the label, only the 1% WIN is slow release. It may be that the slow release portion ranges somewhere between 1% and 16.7%.

I have a bag (I drove an hour to get it from a forum member) and look forward to using it. I plan to treat it as mainly fast release nitrogen.


----------



## thegrassfactor (Apr 12, 2017)

Virginiagal said:


> The problem I was addressing was that you said the biochar portion contains 6% ammoniacal. It is 3% because only half the bag has the biochar product. Also you said you weren't claiming the ammoniacal in the amidas product but you had to be claiming it to get to 24%. Since the point was that to clarify, those misstatements needed to be corrected. Thanks for doing so. I realize that each bag will not be exact. The original question is how much of nitrogen in the Carbon X product is slow release. If you are saying ALL of the nitrogen in biochar half is slow release, then it seems to be 16.7% slow release, 83.3% fast release. Going by the label, only the 1% WIN is slow release. It may be that the slow release portion ranges somewhere between 1% and 16.7%.
> 
> I have a bag (I drove an hour to get it from a forum member) and look forward to using it. I plan to treat it as mainly fast release nitrogen.


Agreed, I awfully misspoke.


----------



## Virginiagal (Apr 24, 2017)

And to correct my analysis, since 1% is WIN, the WIN portion of nitrogen is 1/24 or about 4% of the nitrogen. So the slow release portion could range from 4%-16.7%.


----------



## thegrassfactor (Apr 12, 2017)

Ridgerunner said:


> @thegrassfactor
> Humor an old man:
> 
> 
> ...


It's under supplementary information:

https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/srep/2015/150609/srep11080/extref/srep11080-s1.doc

And no it is not tested as water soluble nitrogen. It's tested for total N P K, ammoniacal, urea, and water insoluble.



Analyzed insoluble content will be close to 2 depending on composition of composted litter materials. For instance, we accept mortality at our facility (free nitrogen from blood, bone, and feathers). We may have to make slight adjustments to the fertilizer formula based on composition since it is prepared in 220 ton batches before drying and grinding, and we only guarantee a minimum.


----------



## g-man (Jun 15, 2017)

I've used the XGRN (8-1-8) for a bit now at 3lb/M. I dont see an immediate response like I am used to with AMS or urea in my yard. But there is definitely a response. The chelated iron does respond in my high pH soils. Plus the combo of SOP all in a single application is very convenient. I also doesnt have a ton of phosphorous like Milo or other biosolids.


----------



## ktgrok (May 25, 2019)

g-man said:


> I've used the XGRN (8-1-8) for a bit now at 3lb/M. I dont see an immediate response like I am used to with AMS or urea in my yard. But there is definitely a response. The chelated iron does respond in my high pH soils. Plus the combo of SOP all in a single application is very convenient. I also doesnt have a ton of phosphorous like Milo or other biosolids.


Yup. Instead of a big green up in a day or so, it was more like a week(ish) when I saw a real difference. But holding that nicely, and grass looks nice and healthy, versus a boom and bust like I have seen with straight AMS a few times. And the 8-1-8 is nice and easy to spread, which I loved.


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

Thank you to everyone who has participated in this topic. It's threads like this and people like you all that make TLF an outstanding resource.

It's great to have my original question answered (16.67%) but it was also great to learn a lot more of the details behind the number in the process. I read the last 10 or so posts a bunch of times to make sure I understood it all.

I am looking forward to trying out this fertilizer in the coming days, and seeing what the visual real-life response is. Numbers are important, but they only get us so far.

Thanks again to all!


----------



## JDgreen18 (Jun 14, 2018)

Hey @Green I can tell you this. I have used 2 apps of Carbon X so far. I have low CEC sandy soil. It doesn't really act like 46 0 0 urea fast release I've used in the past. It usually takes 5 days to a week to get a response. It also holds this color for a while even in my soil. I haven't used 8 1 8 yet but will soon.
I too have enjoyed this thread...

Edit Green I was thinking about this if you wanted a more slow release maybe mixing CX with something like XGN or even Milo might give you what you are looking for. Just a thought.


----------



## kenfeyl (Aug 28, 2018)

Hi all,

I am trying to understand how much of the 8-1-8 XGRN product is slow-release.

The label of XGRN says 6% "Ammoniacal nitrogen" and 2% "water insoluble nitrogen," which I understand to be slow-release. So, I read that as 75% fast-release and 25% slow-release. What am I missing?

In contrast, the label of Milorganite says 4% "water-insoluble nitrogen" and 2% "water-soluble nitrogen." I read that as 67% slow-release and 33% fast-release. Is this also correct?

Thanks!

Ken


----------



## Green (Dec 24, 2017)

kenfeyl said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I am trying to understand how much of the 8-1-8 XGRN product is slow-release.
> 
> ...


You're spot on with the percentages...

But most labels don't list final percentages like the ones you just calculated. They list only the raw percentages usually...though I've seen a few funky labels as well.


----------

