UMaxx 47-0-0 Rates

Keshler Jordan

4/6/2013 3:04 PM

I saw that a bunch of guys are spraying UMaxx 47-0-0 on fairways. What rates and intervals are you guys using it at?

Paul Hallock

6 posts

4/7/2013 8:04 AM

Jordan Keshler said: I saw that a bunch of guys are spraying UMaxx 47-0-0 on fairways. What rates and intervals are you guys using it at?

I have gone at all kinds of rates, but 100 lbs./acre will give you just north of 1lb N/M with a solid 10 week interval. I usually stack it and spray 50 lbs./acre 1 week and then 50 lbs./acre the next. I found that I can get the 50 lbs./acre melted pretty easily, I try to go much above that and we run into sprayer issues, intermittent clogging etc..............Lb. for Lb. it is the cheapest extended release N you can buy!

Keshler Jordan

4/7/2013 10:04 AM

Do you add anything with the UMAXX besides fungicides or insecticides such as a biostimulant? I was thinking Adams Earth from PlantFood or Soil Life.

Paul Hallock

6 posts

4/7/2013 11:04 AM

Jordan Keshler said: Do you add anything with the UMAXX besides fungicides or insecticides such as a biostimulant? I was thinking Adams Earth from PlantFood or Soil Life.

I have mixed it with just about everything under the sun.......................

Justin VanLanduit

0 posts

4/8/2013 1:04 PM

Jordan Keshler said: I saw that a bunch of guys are spraying UMaxx 47-0-0 on fairways. What rates and intervals are you guys using it at?

Jordan,

Been applying 47-0-0 here at BCC for the last 4 years. I really like what it does as far as plant growth, health, and color. I spray it all through the growing season here in Chicago, usually add to tank every 2-3 weeks with our preventative fungicide program. Like others said go all sorts of rates, but if we are going 2 weeks apart I'll usually throw in about 10lb/acre or if we extend to 3 weeks add a little more to about 12lb/acre. Sometimes, skip app depending on look and growth. I have found that this has helped me keep a sustained growth and look, the color I get this way is great and if I want to spruce up even more I throw in a bit of Sanctuary Iron and I get a green like no other. Very cheap source for feeding through the season and find it is compatible with about anything we spray. As stated thought just have to be careful on amount as it may not disolve and you end up with sprayer issues. I do supplement in fall then with an aerification NPK app and then a dormant AMS app, this has been my program for the last 3 years and our fairways are great.

Justin

Michael Armstrong

0 posts

4/8/2013 8:04 PM

Justin, what rate are you going at for your dorimant AMS feed? What's your timing? Granular or spray? How has been working for you? Thanks

Ronald McCarthy

0 posts

4/9/2013 11:04 AM

I also follow a similar plan as Justin, but go with 25#/AC every 3 weeks. I mix it with everything also, but really like to add Iron Hepasulphate (sp). We get a little crazy and spray not only fairways but tees, tee and green banks, descents and several passes around the fairways to the tree lines. I will admit for guest days and such I will go out at 50#/AC as a booster for that week.

Ron
Edgewood Valley - Chicago

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

4/9/2013 1:04 PM

Quick question, is this the 47-0-0 UMaxx from Harrell's? I did a quick search and that is what I came up with. When it asked me about rates and spreader settings, it only mentioned granular. The product code is 200613. Just wondering if I'm looking at the same product and you guys are able to melt it?

I have only sprayed Ammonium Sulfate and noticed I could melt a 51lb bag in a 175 gallon tank and put out on two acres, the 4 acre rate works ok too. I did find I had issues when I put both a bag of each, 21-0-0 and 0-0-50 together in tank and tried to spray over 4 acres, wonder if I could cut that down and not have nozzles and filters clogging?

Thanks! Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Larry Allan

0 posts

4/9/2013 2:04 PM

Same thing Mel, it melts down no problem...
Guys I saw a seminar over the winter either here or on Turf Net and it sounded to me like the instructor said that they could not find any difference in longevity nor volitilization between it and urea. I think they stated that as a granular in agriculture it demonstrated those characteristics, but not in a turf situation. Did anyone else see that seminar....I tried to look it up but had no luck.

Ronald Conard

4 posts

4/9/2013 2:04 PM

Larry Allan said: Same thing Mel, it melts down no problem...
Guys I saw a seminar over the winter either here or on Turf Net and it sounded to me like the instructor said that they could not find any difference in longevity nor vitalization between it and urea. I think they stated that as a granular in agriculture it demonstrated those characteristics, but not in a turf situation. Did anyone else see that seminar....I tried to look it up but had no luck.

Red,

I'd really be interested in that information. That has not been my experience with the product. In fact, I can see a difference in the release pattern between Uflexx and Umaxx, with Umaxx lasting a lot longer and not promoting any flush growth whatsoever. But, maybe I'm hallucinating.

Does melting it down maybe impact the release curve?

League Michael

4/10/2013 8:04 AM

You are all watering these high rates in correct? I sprayed UFlexx 46-0-0 at 1.25 lb N/1000 last year and had some heads not working and saw significant burn on bermuda. Had no problem melting it into the tank and the only clogging issue I had was when I added the Redox Rx Fairway product.

Larry Allan

0 posts

4/10/2013 9:04 AM

Ronald Conard, CGCS said:
Larry Allan said: Same thing Mel, it melts down no problem...
Guys I saw a seminar over the winter either here or on Turf Net and it sounded to me like the instructor said that they could not find any difference in longevity nor vitalization between it and urea. I think they stated that as a granular in agriculture it demonstrated those characteristics, but not in a turf situation. Did anyone else see that seminar....I tried to look it up but had no luck.

Red,

I'd really be interested in that information. That has not been my experience with the product. In fact, I can see a difference in the release pattern between Uflexx and Umaxx, with Umaxx lasting a lot longer and not promoting any flush growth whatsoever. But, maybe I'm hallucinating.

Does melting it down maybe impact the release curve?

I'm just trying to find the seminar and re watch. I will let you know

William Gullicks

0 posts

4/10/2013 9:04 AM

What are the gallons/acre of water most of you are using? I went to a seminar where Dr. Horgan and Dr. Frank spoke about comparisons of straight urea and UMaxx/UFlexx. I don't remember the details, but it was along the lines of using urea because of similar release patterns.

Bill

Larry Allan

0 posts

4/10/2013 12:04 PM

Here is the seminar I was talking about http://www.turfnetsports.com/page/webinar_archives.html. Go down the page and click on:
Bruce Branham, Ph.D., University of Illinois: Nitrogen Fertilization in Athletic Field Turf
Event Date: Jan 30 2013 01:00 PM (Length: 1:00:07)

I just re-watched it and it states categorically that there is "NO" difference between urea and any product such as Umaxx, Uflexx, or Nitrisphere etc in a turf situation based on studies that tracked the different components in the turfgrass plant.

It only stabilizes the nitrogen when not watered in...which we all do.
It looks like we should save our money

Ronald Conard

4 posts

4/10/2013 1:04 PM

Larry Allan said: Here is the seminar I was talking about http://www.turfnetsports.com/page/webinar_archives.html. Go down the page and click on:
Bruce Branham, Ph.D., University of Illinois: Nitrogen Fertilization in Athletic Field Turf
Event Date: Jan 30 2013 01:00 PM (Length: 1:00:07)

I just re-watched it and it states categorically that there is "NO" difference between urea and any product such as Umaxx, Uflexx, or Nitrisphere etc in a turf situation based on studies that tracked the different components in the turfgrass plant.

It only stabilizes the nitrogen when not watered in...which we all do.
It looks like we should save our money

Thanks Red,

I'll have to take a closer look at it but I guess I was seeing things. Wouldn't be the first time but this should be a thread killer. Anyone continuing on with this product, if this information is correct, would be foolish, right?

I guess the upside is we've all seen and have experience with how well straight urea works....

Ronald Conard

4 posts

4/10/2013 1:04 PM

These guys were seeing things too.

http://youtu.be/zadvbrt1-vE

Ronald Conard

4 posts

4/10/2013 2:04 PM

This study appears to back up what Larry posted:

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/turf/report/2006/11.pdf

I think the biggest benefit from Umaxx is in an agricultural setting where it is not watered in. In this situation volatilization is reduced. Leaching maybe reduced using Umaxx vs. urea but how much is really leached out of a healthy root zone under normal irrigation anyway?

I just wonder why at the higher, slow release rates, I wasn't bailing hay with Umaxx.

Learn something new everyday in this bizz for sure.

Larry Allan

0 posts

4/10/2013 2:04 PM

Hey Ron, I sprayed Umaxx for the past 5 years and swore by it...but I have never sprayed straight Urea at similar rates so I have nothing to compare it with.

The research is quite compelling and I kinda feel somewhat duped by the sales force, but live and learn.
Every time I think I've got things figured out, I realize just how little I actual know.

Tony Feheregyhazi

7 posts

4/10/2013 7:04 PM

Hey fellas I've been using a nitrogen stabilizer called Hydrexx (same as Umaxx) when I melt down ag 46-0-0. I have also been using an ag fertilizer called UAN which is liquid 28-0-0 which is a combination of urea and ammonium nitrate. I stabilize the nitrogen in the UAN with agrotain plus. I have had some amazing responses with both but prefer the UAN because of ease of mixing and handling. The stabilizers are mainly so u don't lose the N to voilization or denitrification but I swear the Agrotain Plus slows the release down somehow, and I can't say enough about the color. I'm spraying 1/3 lb n/1000 every 3 weeks on Fwys and will be using the UAN on greens this year.

Tony Feheregyhazi
Bridges Golf Course

Hardy Andrew

4/11/2013 7:04 AM

There was a similar conversation on Twitter about a month ago on N sources. And many Super's along with some academia (Micah Woods, John Kaminski and others I can't remember) stated that Feed Grade Urea will provide equal quality results as a UMAXX or controlled release N source.

The obvious differences were price, ability to apply at lower rates and because of the lower rates volatilization is reduced as well. I have had great success with FGU the last two seasons here and am able to do more controlled applications because of rate control and spraying at lower rates.

Stephen Johnson

0 posts

4/11/2013 7:04 AM

Where are you purchasing your agrotain and Hydrex, and I assume it is in liquid form, also what are your rates of each?

Kippes Jeff S

4/11/2013 7:04 AM

Tony, i have been using a 30-0-0 that is supposed to be 50% slow release. In the past i have used UAN and always had a flush but since using the 30-0-0 i havent gotten the flush. I use in everywhere. Have always been curious about the agritain and hydrex. What rates are you applying these at and what kind of release? thanks

Ronald Conard

4 posts

4/11/2013 7:04 AM

Andrew Hardy said: There was a similar conversation on Twitter about a month ago on N sources. And many Super's along with some academia (Micah Woods, John Kaminski and others I can't remember) stated that [u">Feed Grade Urea will provide equal quality results as a UMAXX or controlled release N source. [/u">

The obvious differences were price, ability to apply at lower rates and because of the lower rates volatilization is reduced as well. I have had great success with FGU the last two seasons here and am able to do more controlled applications because of rate control and spraying at lower rates.

So now I'm wondering if the findings from the studies I recall, regarding the environmental benefits of slow release sources, were what I interpreted when I read them. The take-home message I recall was that slow release sources would not leach, which is true, but my question is: "If urea provides the same response as slow release sources, does that mean that we are really not leaching or volatilizing much if any N from urea?" I'll have to do a little digging around to see if I can find the research on the subject.

At current prices the difference in cost for our operation, over the course of a season, is $6000.

Larry Allan

0 posts

4/11/2013 7:04 AM

Well for me after reading all sorts of conflicting information, I am going out with a tank of each, side by side, and doing my own research.
Maybe over the years we have all just been afraid of Urea until this new controlled release product came out, and we've never really done the comparison. I used to use a Plant Products 34-3-9 soluble at .25lbs of N in 1 gallon per 1000 and never saw any flush or burn. The entire N in the package was Urea and not stabilized.

I wish Jeffy was still with us, He would know the answer and if not he could at least put for his lack of knowledge in eloquent terminology, with proper grammar and phrasing

Ronald Conard

4 posts

4/11/2013 8:04 AM

This one is just a snippet but seems to show leaching from quick release sources in turf

https://www.crops.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/33/5/1822?access=0&view=article

This one isn't really a research study but indicates leaching is not a problem except on sandy, shallow soils

http://www.turf.uiuc.edu/extension/ext-fert.html

More info here

http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/turf/extension/factsheets/turfgrass-fertilization-professional#tns

Who knows? I think it all boils down to timing, rates, and soil type.

Andy Jorgensen

1 posts

4/11/2013 8:04 AM

I've been following this thread for a few days now. Interesting to hear the responses. I don't grow cool-season turf, so can't really relate to you guys. But, wondering if you guys are throwing in the UMaxx because you are already out spraying something else, or if you are making this application simply for the Nitrogen? If you are making for just the Nitrogen, why not use a Polyon or Duration instead?

The reason why I am asking is because for the past two years I have applied a 180-day Polyon product wall-to-wall and have gotten great responses from it. 6 month blend that costs me $202/ac and I only apply it one time.

Like I said, I don't grow your turf, so fill me in if I am missing something.

Andrew Cross

5 posts

4/11/2013 9:04 AM

Ronald Conard, CGCS said: This one is just a snippet but seems to show leaching from quick release sources in turf

https://www.crops.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/33/5/1822?access=0&view=article

This one isn't really a research study but indicates leaching is not a problem except on sandy, shallow soils

http://www.turf.uiuc.edu/extension/ext-fert.html

More info here

http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/turf/extension/factsheets/turfgrass-fertilization-professional#tns

Who knows? I think it all boils down to timing, rates, and soil type.

Looking at the first abstract, they are talking about applying 3#/M sq ft per year (I don't have access to the full article to see breakdowns or all one app).
I can't imagine you are leaching or losing much of your nitrogen if you spraying it at rates of 0.25#/M or less we usually target 0.10# N/M.

I'm a firm believer in straight urea into the tank for spoon feeding, my current Superintendent likes to use UMaxx so that's what we use, ultimately it's his decision.

Andy, we always throw it in with a fungicide or pesticide app. Never go out with just UMaxx in the tank.

James Gubricky

0 posts

4/11/2013 10:04 AM

We started mixing urea with hydrexx last year and spraying it with our Primo apps, primarily in the rainy season here. We average about 60" of rain over a 6 month period, with a few months getting 15" or so. So yeah we get a lot of rain. In my mind the hydrexx definitely helped maintain the color and extended the effectiveness compared to when we sprayed the urea without the hydrexx.

I don't use the hydrexx during the dry season, as we will go out with granular fertilizers. In our situation, with the amount of rain we receive, it worked well for us. It would be interesting to see a direct comparison between with the hydrexx and without. I think I'll give that a try and see what comes up. Cheers.

Peter Bowman

11 posts

4/11/2013 11:04 AM

Andrew Hardy said:
.....ability to apply at lower rates and because of the lower rates volatilization is reduced as well.

I would think the amount volatilized would be less the less you apply, but the % volatilized would be the same, essentially then not saving anything due to less volatilization since you're making more apps if you're going at lower rates. Over time you're still volatilizing the same amount. Just me thinking out loud.

Tony Feheregyhazi

7 posts

4/11/2013 11:04 AM

Jeff the rates of Agrotain and hydrexx we use here will vary a little bit depending if we are fertilizing non-irrigated rough or irrigated fwys but we will always threw it in the tank in an effort to help not losing any to the atmosphere. When using UAN we will add 4 to 10 oz. per every 50lbs of actual N applied. If we are treating a non-irrigated area we will be closer to the that 10 oz. mark and hope for a rain in 10 to 14 days. Over the years we have do some test strips in non-irrigated native grass areas and the stuff does what it it is billed to do, not lose nitrogen. I as well had some rush growth with UAN without any N stabilizer but this seems to slow the release up a little for me. No science behind that it's just what I see.

Forum Groups

UMaxx 47-0-0 Rates Cancel

Forum Groups

UMaxx 47-0-0 Rates Cancel The title field is required!

UMaxx 47-0-0 Rates Cancel