AGGRAND® 2012 Vegetable Productivity Study

7/28/2019 AGGRAND 2012 Vegetable Productivity Study

1/36AGGRAND A Division of AMSOIL INC., Superior, Wis., USA

2012 VegetableProductivity Study


2/36

2 AGGRAND Vgtab Prductvty Study

Tab f Cntnts

Abstract Page 3

Introduction Page 3

Materials and Methods Plot Plan Page 4

Soil Sampling Page 6

Soil Respiration Page 6

Weather Data Page 8

Tomato Starts and Transplants Page 9

Planting Lettuce Page 12

Snap Pea Sowing Page 13

Growth Plot Maintenance Page 14

Post Harvest Page 18

Plant Vigor Page 19

Results and Discussion Tomatoes Page 20

Lettuce Page 23

Snap Peas Page 25

Yield Summary Page 26

Weather Observations Page 26

Soil Analysis and Respiration Page 29

Conclusions Page 33

Reerences Page 34


3/36

AGGRAND Vegetable Productivity Study 3

2012 Vegetable Productivity Study

Abstract

Since 2010, AGGRAND has conducted a Vegetable Productivity Study as part o a long-term study to provide

quantiable crop growth, yield and soil-analysis comparisons. In its third year, soil nutrient levels and yield trends are

becoming clearer as a result o ollowing sustainable growing techniques in the AGGRAND plot. This years program

eatured yield comparisons o a plot using AGGRAND ertilizers and soil amendments and a plot using a sh/kelp-based organic ertilizer. The organic ertilizer was applied according to the companys application guidelines on the

product label and the manuacturers website. A control plot that received only water was planted between the

competitive and AGGRAND plots. This control plot was watered whenever the other plots received ertilizer. The plots

were planted with three common garden vegetables tomatoes, lettuce and snap peas and were evaluated or tota

weight and number.

The AGGRAND fertilizer program produced greater yields of tomatoes, lettuce and snap peas when compared

to the plots fertilized with the leading organic fertilizer.

Introduction

The report summarizing the results o the 2011 AGGRAND Growth Study (AGGRAND, 2012) provided an overview o

the developments in organic agricultural research during the last 30 years. Factors such as weather, soil type, soilchemistry, soil biology, cultivation methods, pesticide and herbicide use are now being evaluated as part o the entire

ecosystem. Researchers such as J.W Doran, Neal Kinsey, and Je Moyer have brought an eco-agriculture approach

into the mainstream o agricultural thought.

Soil condition is one o the leading actors that infuences crop production and can be modied to increase yields.

A general knowledge o soils is important or any person involved at any level o agriculture.

Soil is dened as a thin layer o ractured and weathered minerals, organic matter, air, and water that physically and

nutritionally supports plant lie. An average soil is composed o approximately 45 percent mineral material, 5 percent

organic matter, 20 percent to 30 percent air and 20 percent to 30 percent water. (Brady, 1974) The proportion o these

constituents contributes signicantly to the suitability o plant growth and development.

The mineral component o the soil contains ractions o sand, silt and clay. For example, a soil with an even balance osand, silt and clay is considered a loam. A sandy loam has a higher proportion o sand compared to a clay or silt loam

soil. (Brady, 1974) Organic soils, in contrast, ound in marshes, swamps and bogs contain 80 percent to 95 percent

organic matter and when drained are some o the most productive when raising specialty crops.

Soil water contains dissolved minerals in the orm o charged ions and is the source o lie-giving nutrients or the plant

at the root hair. The water content and movement throughout the soil is dependent upon the physical characteristics o

the soil. A soil consisting o a high proportion o sand will hold little water but will allow ree growth o roots throughout

the system i adequate moisture is available. (Taiz, 1991) On the other extreme, soils containing high amounts o clay

can hold water in dry periods but do not acilitate good root development. There is a complex interaction o dissolved

minerals, organic matter, soil water and air at the root surace.

Why do plants need ertilizer? Plants need ood in the orm o dissolved minerals, or ions in solution, to perorm the

complex process o photosynthesis. Being decient in one or more nutrients, or water, will dramatically aect the plantsability to grow, bear ruit and reproduce in the most ecient manner. Direct application o minerals; ertilizers in the orm

o water-soluble salts; or natural ertilizers such as plant materials, animal manures and rendering byproducts; all are

options or obtaining successul yields.

AGGRAND Natural Fertilizers and soil amendments are ormulated with emulsied sh, kelp, lime, ulvic and humic

acids, sulate o potash, sot rock phosphate and other natural materials. These materials have been recognized as part

o a sustainable cropping system designed to provide the necessary nutrients or plants to grow and thrive. They also

build the soil by enhancing microbial growth. (Albrecht, 1996, Kinsey, 2009, National Stone Association, 1986, Senn,

1987). The competitive organic ertilizer used in this study is ormulated to deliver similar benets but appears to be less

highly ormulated than AGGRAND products.


4/36


The ollowing ertilizers and soil amendments were employed in this study:

AGGRAND Natural Fertilizer (4-3-3), Product Code: NOF

AGGRAND Natural Kelp and Sulate o Potash (0-0-8), Product Code: NKP

AGGRAND Natural Liquid Bonemeal (0-12-0), Product Code: NBM

AGGRAND Natural Liquid Lime, Product Code: NLL

AGGRAND Organic Fertilizer (4-3-3), Product Code: OSF

ORGANIC COMPETITOR, (4-4-1) is primarily used by the consumer market This product comes in

a ready-to-spray quart bottle that covers approximately 3,000 square eet and is composed o

hydrolyzed sh and seaweed with Chilean nitrate added to increase nitrogen levels

The objective o this study was to compare yield by weight and number o vegetables The study used the

AGGRAND ertilization program as outlined in the AGGRAND Gardening Guide (AGGRAND, 2010)

The competitive organic ertilizer program included ollowing the manuacturers mix ratios and application

protocols The soil was continually evaluated to determine nutrient shits or each system and the impact

o each ertilization system

MATERIALS AND METHODSPlot Plan

A growth plot sowing plan was established to use the area most eciently by providing ample room

or the vegetables to grow and develop, while leaving enough room to water, ertilize and weed the plots

A 2-oot walking path was established between the vegetable types See Figure 1

MATeRiAlS AND MeThoDS Pt Pan

Figure 1: 2012 Growth plot plan


5/36

AGGRAND Vgtab Prductvty Study 5

On April 30, all plots were tilled, soil samples were acquired and soil temperature (Davis, Part # 6470)

and moisture (Watermark, Part # 6440) sensors were reset in the center o the AGGRAND, control and

organic competitor plots Sensors were placed at a depth o 12 inches (305 cm) These sensors were

connected to a solar transmitter (Davis, Part # 6345), and transmitted data to the weather console and

personal computer located in the AGGRAND laboratory See Figure 2

To reduce wind, and maintain air and soil temperatures within the planting area, a 6-oot-wide

windscreen was attached to the existing ence around the perimeter o the site SunBlocker Premium,

60% Shade cloth was obtained rom Farm-Tek Supplies, Dyersville, IA, (Part #103764)

The vegetables chosen in this study are popular hybrid and heirloom varieties, with seed established in

cooler climates to produce good yields The ollowing seed were planted:

Lettuce: Nancy (OG), (Lactuca sativa), Product ID: 438G, Lot: 40678, Vendor: Johnnys Selected

Seeds, Waterville, Maine

Snap Peas: Snowbird Edible podded, (Pisum sativum var macrocarpon) Product ID: 52597A,

Lot: For 2012, Lot 2, Vendor: Burpee Seeds, Warminster, Pennsylvania

Tomatoes: German Johnson (OG), (Solanum lycopersicum), Product ID: 3815G, Lot: 40895,

Vendor: Johnnys Selected Seeds, Waterville, Maine

Figure 2: Preparations or Planting


6/36


The soil samples were shipped to Midwest Laboratories o Omaha, Neb or analysis speciying the S3C

package The analysis included evaluation o percent organic matter; available phosphorus (weak and

strong Bray); exchangeable potassium, hydrogen, magnesium and calcium; pH; buer index; cation

exchange capacity (CEC); percent base saturation o cation elements; and carry-over nitrogen as nitrate

Micronutrient analysis o sulur, manganese, boron, zinc, iron and copper, evaluation o excess lime and

soluble salts also were part o the detailed analysis See Graphs 7-10 in the Results section or a summary

o all soil analyses obtained during this study

Soil Respiration

Carbon dioxide respiration is a measure o the bacterial action within the soil that leads to mineralizationo key soil nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and is an indicator o soil health (Haney, 2008)

This can be determined in a number o ways Use o the Solvita Soil Respiration Kit, oered by Woods

End Research o Mount Vernon, Maine, is one method that is accepted by the US Department o

Agriculture (United States Department o Agriculture, 1999, Haney, 2008) The Solvita respiration system

includes a Solvita Digital Color Reader, test jars and color-metric paddles (Part # DCR-soil)

On May 8, soil samples rom each plot quadrant were evaluated or CO2

respiration by weighing 100 grams

o soil rom each plot quadrant and placing them into a Boekel Scientic convection oven (Model: 132000,

Serial #: 022503749) set at 476 C (116 F) to dry overnight The next day, 4000 grams

o soil or each plot were weighed using an AND FX3000idigital balance (Serial #: 15610355) and placed

into small plastic beakers lined with lter material The plastic beakers were placed in glass jars and

250 mL o distilled water was added Test paddles were inserted into each jar and sealed On May 10, the

soil respiration paddles were measured (Serial # 047112S Exp: 02/16/2013) with the Solvita Digital Color

Reader (model S100)

On Oct 2, CO2

respiration was tested again with soil samples collected as described above In this

instance,100 grams o soil rom each plot were placed into the Boekel Scientic convection oven (Model:

132000, Serial #: 022503749) set at 50 C (122F) to dry overnight The next day, 40 grams o soil were

placed into plastic beakers lined with lter material and placed into glass jars, 250 mL o distilled water was

added by syringe Test paddles were added as beore and jars sealed Results were measured on Oct 4 See

gures 4 through 7 Soil respiration data is summarized in Table 14, Graph 6 in the Results section

S Sampng / S Rspratn

Soil Sampling

Each planter was tilled to a depth o about 8 inches Using a soil sampling auger, soil samples were obtained

rom the top 6 inches o the planting bed at nine evenly spaced points in each quadrant See Figure 3

Figure 3: Soil sampling plan


7/36


Figure 5: Sample jar, soil and paddle

Figure 7: Color Reader

Figure 4: Adding distilled water to soil

Figure 6: Solvita Test Paddles ater 24 Hours


8/36


Weather Data

The documentation o weather data and comparison with historical data is essential to convey the conditions plants

encounter throughout their growth and development Weather data was collected, archived and reported throughout

the 2012 growing season Up to 31 parameters were evaluated by the weather station and associated sotware

Figure 8 shows the weather station data collection apparatus, and Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the data output at thehost personal computer

Watr Data

Figure 8: Weather station Figure 9: Current weather data


9/36


Figure 10: Display o temperature, precipitation and barometric pressure or one year

Weather observations are summarized in the results section o this paper in Graphs 1 - 5

Tomato Starts and Transplants

Tomatoes were started in the AGGRAND laboratory instead o purchasing cultivars locally On April 23, two tomato

seeds were planted about 0259 under the soil surace in our fats o 359x 359 pots (36) The seeds were potted in

Pro-Mix (PGX) Proessional potting soil Part # 0463 rom Premier Horticulture, Inc, Quakertown, Penn Filtered water

was lightly sprayed on the fats to wet the seed and plant medium The fats were placed in the growth area with

heating mats under the fats and fuorescent growth lamps above, along with a plastic drape over each fat to maintain

soil moisture The most robust o the 72 plants ater thinning were transplanted to the outdoor plots

Growth Table Details

Heat Mats: (2) 20759 wide x 489 long rom Hydroarm, Petaluma, Cali

Growth Lamps conguration alternating, per side: Four: Sylvania 40W GRO-LUX F40 GRO

Four: VitaLite40W duroLite

Light Duration: 14 hours per day

Soil Temperature was set at 80 F (267 C) with a Digital Heat Mat Thermostat rom Hydroarm

Lamp height above table: 12 inches (305 cm)

Temperature and soil moisture checked every day

Tmat Starts and Transpants


10/36


Figure 11: Newly seeded tomato fats

On April 25, each pot was moistened with a ne mist o ltered water Tomato plants began

germination on April 26 The next day, a small amount o water was sprayed on the top o each

tomato pot to dampen the soil, then 1000 mL o ltered water was added to each tomato fat

The growing number and size o the plants required addition o 2000 mL o ltered water on

April 30The germination rate was 86 percent on April 30 The plants required 1000 mL o

ltered water on May 3, 7 and 10


11/36


Figure 12: Fertilizing tomato seedlings Figure 13: Tomatoes beore hardening

The tomato plants were thinned to one plant per pot on May 11 The driest plants were

segregated into one fat and watered with 1000 mL o ltered water and placed in a single fat

On May 15, plants were segregated into categories to refect diering stages o development

and ertilized in the ollowing manner: (See Figure 12)

AGGRAND: 25 mL o a 05 percent solution o AGGRAND natural ertilizer (Add 5 mL

ertilizer measured with a syringe to graduated cylinder and add water to 1000 mL mark) Control: 25 mL o ltered water

Organic competitor: 25 mL o a 08 percent solution (Add 8 mL ertilizer measured with

a syringe to graduated cylinder and add water to 1000 mL mark)

Uneven water uptake necessitated watering individual plants with 50 mL o ltered water on

May 21 The next day, the height o the growth table lamps was increased by 2 inches to

acilitate tomato plant growth On May 23, each fat received 1000 mL o distilled water The

next day, the growth-lamp height was increased again by 2 inches and dry plants were

watered with 50 mL o ltered water At this point there were seven organic competitor

tomatoes and our AGGRAND tomatoes All o the tomatoes received 55 mL o ltered water

on May 25 The plants grew rapidly, and the growth lamps were raised an additional 3 inches

on May 28 On May 29, six extra organic competitor plants received water and the organiccompetitor fat received 2000 mL o water The control tomatoes received 1000 mL o water

The AGGRAND tomatoes received 2000 mL o water, while the AGGRAND spare plants

received 100 mL each Hardening to prepare the plants or transplanting outdoors began by

placing them in the laboratory breezeway or two hours (See Figure 14) On May 30, the

tomato plants were exposed to outdoor conditions or 25 hours The plants were placed in the

laboratory breezeway or three hours on May 31 June 1 the growth lamp height was increased

2 inches All o the plants were exposed to morning sun or one hour and were outdoors or

ve hours during the aternoon The plants received ltered water at the rates that ollow:

Organic competitor spares: 1000 mL entire fat

Organic Competitor: 100 mL each plant

Control fat tomatoes: 1000 mL

Control fat spare tomatoes: 1000 mL

AGGRAND spares: 1000 mL entire fat

AGGRAND tomato fats: 1000 mL entire fat


12/36


Figure 14: June 5 tomato planting and ertilizing

Figure 15: Lettuce Seed Figure 16: Planting Lettuce Seed

On June 4, the nal indoor watering took place with three organic competitor tomatoes

receiving 100 mL and our control tomatoes receiving 100 mL each Organic competitor spare

tomatoes and control spare plants did not need watering

On June 5 the tomatoes were transplanted (Figure 14) to the outdoor growth plots according

to the Planting Detail (Table 1) and ertilized according to the Growth Plot Fertilization Plan

(Table 3)

Planting LettuceOn June 5, lettuce seeds were sown with 23 lettuce seeds in each row (Figures 15 and 16),

with plans to thin to six plants in each row Plants were ertilized according to the Fertilization

Plan (Table 3) The small size and low density o the lettuce seed made it dicult to providethe desired spacing

Pantng lttuc


13/36


Snap Pea Sowing

On June 12, snap peas were sown (Figure 17) Three pea seeds were planted in each 29 x 158

mound, with the intent o thinning to one plant per location, and ertilized according to plans refected

in tables 1 and 3 Plants were trellised with a tomato cage ater reaching about 4 9 (10 cm) in height

AGGRAND Control Organic competitor

Figure 17: Sowing Snap Peas

Table 1 Planting detail

Crop Row spacing (ft.) Plant Spacing (in.) Plants/Row Plants/Plot Plant Total

Lettuce1.5 from border

2 from center

9 from border

18 from center6 24 144

Snap Peas1.5 from border3 from center

18 from border36 from center

3 9 54

Tomatoes1.5 from border3 from center

18 from border36 from center

3 9 54

Snap Pa Swng


14/36


Growth Plot Maintenance

Table 2 (below and on the next page) summarizes plant weeding, cultivation and watering throughout the growing season

Date Procedure/Observations

June 12 Sowed three snap pea seeds in the same area. Fertilized per fertilization plan.

June 18 Hoed, weeded and raked all plots. Documented cutworm damage on tomato plants and picked worms off of

plants.

June 21 Fertilized all plants in the organic competitor plot according to the fertilization plan. Fertilization of the lettuce wasdelayed because of a lengthy rainstorm. Discovered plants were infested with foliar cutworms.

June 28 Fertilized organic competitor plot per fertilization plan.Replanted a number of peas that failed to germinate because of extremely wet soil.

Hoed, weeded and cultivated all plots.

June 29 Fertilized AGGRAND and competitor lettuce plots.

Watered control lettuce plants.

Watered and replanted pea seeds in the AGGRAND and control plots.

July 2 AGGRAND tomatoes starting to bloom.

July 3 Ferti lized AGGRAND tomatoes per ferti lization plan.

Control plot received water through precipitation.

Placed support cages around all tomato plants.Noted three small tomatoes in organic competitor plot; one dollar size, one the size of a quarter and one the size

of a dime.

July 5 Fertilized all of the plants in the organic competitor plots according to the fertilizer plan. The control plots received

adequate water through precipitation.

July 10 Fertilized AGGRAND lettuce plants according to the fertilization plan.

Applied 6000 mL water per row of lettuce in control plots.

July 12 Fertilized all plants in the organic competitor plots.Applied 6000 mL of water per row to all plants in the control plot.

Replanted and watered peas in the AGGRAND plot.July 17 Fer tilized AGGRAND plots.

Tomatoes at full bloom.

Many of the peas are at or near bloom.Applied 6000 mL water per row to all plants in the control and organic fertilizer plots.

Applied 6000 mL of water per row to lettuce in AGGRAND plot.

July 19 Fertiized all plants in the organic competitor plots.

July 20 Thinned pea plants to one plant per cage. Some peas are producing pods.

July 23 Of the 23 lettuce seeds sown in each row, 25 were harvested in the AGGRAND plot. Because of extreme rainfall

in June, some seeds moved next to each other or slightly out of the row. Some plants were coupled with a larger

plant when harvested. At harvest, plants were pulled root and all from the soil. Root sections were cut off andeach plant weighed. Results were recorded in the 2012 harvest spreadsheet.

Applied 6000 mL of water in each row to all plots. Cultivated and weeded each plot. Obtained chlorophyll read-

ings of lettuce plants.

July 25 Harvested peas in all plots.

Harvested lettuce in AGGRAND and organic competitor plots.

July 26 Harvested peas in control plot.

July 27 Performed the nal fertilizer application on all plots.Watered the control plot with 6000 mL of water per row.

Table 2: Growth plot maintenance

Grwt Pt Mantnanc


15/36


Table 2:Growth plot maintenance

Date Procedure/Observations

July 30 Harvested peas and lettuce in the competitor plots, weighed and logged the results.

July 31 Obtained chlorophyll readings of competitive plot tomato plants.

Aug. 1 Harvested peas in all of the plots and entered the data into the growth plot harvest database.

Aug. 2 Harvested lettuce in all of the plots and entered weights into the growth plot harvest database.

Aug. 6 Harvested lettuce and peas in all plots. Harvested one tomato in the organic competitor plot.Recorded weight of produce in the growth plot harvest database.

Monitored soil moisture, and found the rain on Aug. 4 and 5 adequately watered the tomatoes.

Aug. 10 Harvested peas in all plots.Harvested one tomato in the organic competitor plot.

Watered all tomato plants in plots with 3.3 gallons of water. Also applied 3.3 gallons of water around the moisture

sensor to determine the soil moisture change.Recorded all harvest data in the growth plot harvest database.

Aug. 13 Harvested peas in all plots and recorded data in the growth plot harvest database.Harvested one tomato in the organic competitor plot.

Watered tomato plants in all plots with 3.3 gallons of water, and applied another 3.3 gallons of water around themoisture sensor to determine the soil moisture change.

Aug. 17 Harvested peas in all plots and entered information into the database.

Aug. 20 Harvested tomatoes in the AGGRAND plot. Weighed and recorded each tomato in the database.

Aug. 22 Harvested tomatoes in the AGGRAND and organic competitor plots.Harvested peas in all plots.

Watered tomato plants in all plots with 3.3 gallons of water and applied 3.3 gallons of water around the moisturesensor to determine the soil moisture change.

Aug. 23 Harvested tomatoes in the organic competitor plot. Three tomatoes were damaged by birds.

Aug. 27 Harvested tomatoes and peas in all plots.

Watered tomatoes in all plots and applied water to the moisture sensor area.

Aug. 29 Harvested tomatoes in all plots.

Aug. 31 Harvested peas and tomatoes in all plots.

Sept. 4 Harvested tomatoes in all plotsWeeded all plots.

Sept. 7 Harvested tomatoes in all plots.


Sept. 14 Harvested tomatoes in control plot.


Sept. 21 Harvested tomatoes in all plots because of potential hard freeze.

Sept. 24 Obtained soil samples of all plots at nine evenly located points and shipped to Midwest Laboratories for analysis.

Removed moisture and temperature sensors in preparation of planting bed maintenance.

Removed tomato plants from all planters.

Sept. 25-27 Tilled and raked growth plots, reintroduced soil temperature and moisture sensors and removed windbreak.


16/36


Figure 18: AGGRAND ertilizer application preparation

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize ertilizer applications and mix ratios or each plot; 6000 mL o ertilizer

mix or water was applied with a watering can per row on all plants ater initial planting and ertilizer

applications (Figure 18) The application date is shown in red Control applications containing only tap

water ollowed the same timing and volume as the organic competitor product in the competitive plots

Generally, the competitive ertilizer was applied at regular one-week intervals ater the initial planting

and establishment o the plants

Crop

AGGRANDOrganic

CompetitorControl AGGRAND

OrganicCompetitor

Control

Tomato

6/53% NOF*

2% NBM**

% NKP***

6/51% organic

competitor

6/5

Water volumesame as organic

competitor

7/32% NOF* 2%

NBM** at rst

bloom

6/121% organic

competitor

7/12

Water volumesame as

organiccompetitor

Peas

6/12

3% NOF*2% NBM**

1% NKP***

6/121% organic

competitor

6/12


competitor

7/17

1% NOF*1% NKP***

one week before

rst bloom

6/211% organic

competitor

7/12


competitor

Lettuce

6/5

3% NOF*2% NBM**

1% NKP***

6/5

1% organiccompetitor

6/5


competitor

6/29

2% NOF* at twoweeks

6/12


6/29


competitor

Table 3: Fertilizer application timing, rate and mix ratio

* Natural Fertilizer 4-3-3 ** Natural Liquid Bonemeal 0-12-0

At planting soil application Second Application


17/36


*** Natural Kelp and Sulfate of Potash 0-0-8 ****Natural Liquid Lime

Crop

AGGRAND

Organic

Competitor Control AGGRAND

Organic

Competitor Control

Tomato

7/17

2% NOF* 2%NLL****

at full bloom

6/211% organiccompetitor

7/12

Water, samevoume & time

as organic

competitor

7/272% NKP

during fruit ll

6/28


7/17

Water, samevolume & time

as organic

competitor

Peas

7/271% NOF

1% NKP@ 1 week

before 2ndbloom

6/281% organic

competitor

7/12


as organiccompetitor

7/51% organic

competitor

7/17



Lettuce7/10

2% NOF

@ 5 weeks

6/211% organic

competitor

7/10



7/272% NOF

@ 8 weeks

6/281% organic

competitor

7/17




Crop Organic Competitor Control

6th ApplicationOrganic Competitor



Tomato

7/5


7/27Water, same

volume & time asorganic

competitor

7/12


7/27


Peas7/12

1% organic

competitor

7/27Water, same

volume & time as

organiccompetitor

7/271% organic

competitor

Lettuce

7/5


7/27Water, same

volume & time asorganic

competitor

7/27


7/27



3rd Application

5th Application

4th Application


18/36


Post Harvest

On Sept 26, soil samples were obtained at the end o the harvest and beore tilling all o the planters

Soil samples, 6 inches deep rom nine evenly spaced points, were obtained, mixed and orwarded

to Midwest Laboratories or analysis or percent organic matter; available phosphorus (weak and

strong Bray); exchangeable potassium, hydrogen, magnesium and calcium; pH; buer index; cationexchange capacity (CEC); percent base saturation o cation elements; carryover nitrogen as nitrate;

micronutrient analysis o sulur, manganese, boron, zinc, iron and copper; evaluation o excess lime;

and soluble salts (See sampling plan, Figure 19) Three post-harvest samples were tested All soil

samples are summarized in Graphs 7 - 10

Pst harvst

Figure 19: Post Harvest Soil Sampling & Plan


19/36


Ater the harvest was complete the growth plots were tilled and the soil temperature and moisture

probes were reset (Figure 20)

Plant Vigor

Chlorophyll levels are an indicator o the amount o nitrogen in the plants, which is related to the

plants vigor A Field Scout CM1000 Chlorophyll Meter rom Spectrum Laboratories o Plaineld, Ill

(Part # 2950, Serial # 539) was used or accurate measurement and to determine the amount o

nitrogen needed or optimal growth (Murdock, etal 2004) The CM1000 was generated rom

technology developed by NASA in the 1990s The ratio o the percentage o refectance at the diering

wavelengths o light provides a relative number that correlates to the amount o chlorophyll in the

plants leaves (NASA, 2011) Data variability is the result o a number o actors such as chlorophyll

levels, lea texture and the amount o pubescence o each lea species

On July 23, the lettuce crop was measured or relative chlorophyll levels Tomatoes were measured on

two occasions, July 19 and 31 The readings were taken in ull sun, between 10 am and 2 pm, or

optimal intensity See Figures 21 and 22

Pant Vgr

Figure 20: Fall Tilling & Raking Growth Plots

Figure 21: CM1000 measuring a lettuce plant Figure 22: Red absorbing and refected beam


20/36


RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTomatoes

As in previous years, the ocus o this study was to determine total yield by weight and number o

tomatoes rom each plot, but other parameters such as plant vigor and appearance are helpul in

developing the history o why plants under certain ertilization programs yield more ruit than others

Tomato plants were started rom seed, with a germination rate o 86 percent The tomato plants

encountered slow initial growth because o extremely warm temperatures just ater transplanting and

cold, wet conditions during the last hal o June Lea cut worms also were a problem Damage by this

pest made it necessary to replace 16 plants rom all plots The intense rainstorm on June 19 and 20

fattened many plants to the ground

Tomato growth rate rapidly increased during July due to consistently warmer temperatures and the

population reduction o the cut worms Tomato plants started to bloom on July 2 and on July 3 cageswere placed around each plant Comparison pictures were taken late June through the month o

August Figure 24 shows the comparison between ertilizer programs on July 30

To determine plant vigor, chlorophyll readings were taken o the tomato plants in each plot on July 19

and July 31 Five plants on the south and west sides o each plot were evaluated with the aim o

obtaining the best sun angle or maximum light intensity Eighteen data points were taken at random

or the AGGRAND and Leading Organic plants with 17 readings being obtained or the Control plot or

the July 19 testing, and nine points were obtained or each plot on July 31 See Table 7

Figure 23: Lea Cut Worm

ReSUlTS AND DiSCUSSioN Tmats

AGGRAND Organic Competitor

Figure 24: Tomato Plants, July 30

Control


21/36


Tomato harvest commenced on Aug 10 with the ollowing criteria:

Tomatoes to be orange to red on vine or harvest

Fruit on the ground is counted and measured, even when green

Measure weight and maximum diameter or each tomato in each plot

The data shows that the AGGRAND-ertilized plants had more measurable chlorophyll as the growing

season progressed, which means more nitrogen in the leaves correlating to increased vigor This also

substantiates the observations that the plants subjected to the AGGRAND ertilization program yielded

more ruit weight per plant and per plot when compared to the other growth plots

Images o tomato plants obtained on Aug 14 documented exceptional growth in the AGGRAND plot and

the more pronounced bottom lea die-back on the organic competitor and control plants See Figure 25

Table 7: Relative Chlorophyll Readings Tomato Plants

AGGRAND Organic Competitor

Figure 25: Tomato Plants, Aug 14

Control

Plot Date Number of Data PointsAverage Chlorophyll

IndexStandard Diviation

AGGRAND July 19 18 229 32

Competitor July 19 17 238 29

Control July 19 18 224 23

AGGRAND July 31 9 296 45

Competitor July 31 9 284 60

Control July 31 9 257 57


22/36


Tomatoes were harvested on Aug 13, 15, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, Sept 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 and nally onSept 21 in the competitive plots Each tomato was weighed using an AND FX3000idigital balance,

serial # 15610355 (Figure 27) Table 8 summarize the harvest results

Figure 26: Tomatoes at various ripening stages

Figure 27: Tomato weighing


23/36


Table 8: Tomato harvest o competitive plots

Fertilizer Total # Total Weight (g) Total Weight (lbs.) Weight/Plant (lbs.)

AGGRAND 453 112,627.09 248.08 27.56

Competitor 457 106,251.96 234.04 26.00

Control 157 44,891.48 99.88 10.99

The AGGRAND ertilization system tomatoes, as shown in the competitive plots, produced heavier ruit

with slightly ewer numbers, but resulted in more total weight per plot and plant when compared to

plants that were ertilized with the organic competitor

Lettuce

Lettuce is considered a cool season vegetable and was expected to grow well in the Superior area

The germination rate o the lettuce seeds was very low with 167 plants emerging out o the 552 seeds

sown, which is 303 percent This low success rate was most likely because o high temperatures at

initial planting and the heavy rainall experienced in June Many o the seeds did not germinate or were

simply washed away by the food waters

On July 23, plant vigor was determined by measuring chlorophyll levels o the lettuce plants Each

plant was scanned and the data recorded The data was averaged and the standard deviation was

determined to arrive at the nal, relative chlorophyll reading

See Table 9

The data above shows that the AGGRAND-ertilized plants had slightly less chlorophyll than the

organic competitor plants, but more than the control, which means more nitrogen in the leaves,

or increased vigor This is somewhat counter to the observations that the plants subjected to the

AGGRAND ertilization program yielded larger plants and earlier development when compared to

the other growth plots See Figure 28

lttuc

Plot Number of data points Average chlorophyll index Standard deviation

AGGRAND 15 142 18

Organic competitor 15 152 21

Control 15 131 10

Table 9: Relative chlorophyll readings or lettuce

Figure 28: Harvesting AGGRAND lettuce


24/36


Lettuce harvest o the AGGRAND plot began on July 23, and showed superior development over the

organic competitor and control plots The lettuce root stem was cut o at the node where the bottom

leaves o the plant meet Each lettuce head was weighed using an AND FX3000idigital balance, serial

# 15610355 See Figure 29

The lettuce harvest spanned several weeks, including the ollowing days: July 23, 25, 30, Aug 2, 6,

and 10 Table 10 summarizes the lettuce harvest

The AGGRAND-ertilized lettuce plot produced heavier heads and higher per-plant quantities than the

produce grown with the organic competitor As expected, the control plants ared the worst as ar as

quantity, total weight and number o plants

Figure 29

Trimming root to node and weighing

Plot # of Plants Total Wt. (g) Total Wt. (lbs.) Ave. Head Wt. (g)

AGGRAND 55 4756.83 10.48 86.49

COMPETITOR 39 3438.33 7.57 88.16

Control 24 1565.32 3.95 65.22

Table 10: Lettuce Harvest Competitive Plots


25/36


Snap Peas

Snap Peas are a gardeners avorite because they are relatively easy to grow and achieve high yields

This vegetable is easy to prepare and process because the entire pod can be consumed without the

time-consuming pea-shelling process The seed took approximately one month to germinate Cold

temperatures and excessive rain in June caused the delayed germination process On June 28, anumber o snap peas were replanted because o the fooding Thinning to one plant per mound

occurred throughout the summer because o increasing temperatures Three snap-pea plants were

replanted in the AGGRAND plot on July 12 because o the germination diculty Snap peas were

picked when the pod was beginning to bulge but not enlarged The pea pods were weighed per plant

using an AND FX3000idigital balance, serial # 1561035 See Figures 30 and 31

Figure 30: Picking Snap Peas Figure 31: Weighing Snap Peas

Snap Pas

Table 11: Summary o pea harvest in competitive plots

Plot Total number Total Weight (g) Total Weight (lbs.) Weight/Plant (g)

AGGRAND 318 711.86 1.57 79.1

Organic competitor 194 591.10 1.30 65.7

Control 213 532.77 1.17 59.2


26/36

26 AGGRAND Vegetable Productivity Study

Weather Observations

Historical weather data or the period 1909 to 2010 was acquired rom Dr. Edward J. Hopkins,

Assistant Wisconsin State Climatologist or observations in Superior, Wis., at position 46.70N,

92.02W, approximately 4.25 miles (6.84 km) southeast o the AGGRAND growth plots located at46.73N, 92.11W. Temperature and precipitation comparisons covered a period rom May through

September where these parameters have the most infuence on plant growth.

For the period o May through July 2012, and in September, the average maximum temperatures were

higher than the 100-year average. This resulted in accelerated growth o tomatoes, but may have

limited lettuce and pea germination. Average minimum temperatures were higher than the long-term

average. The overall temperature during the period rom May through September was slightly higher,

which enabled the crops to be harvested about two weeks earlier than in 2011. See Graphs 1, 2 and 3.

The AGGRAND-ertilized plot produced more pea pods than the organic competitor or the control plot. An

unexpected development was that the control plants produced more pods than the organic competitor plot.

Yield Summary

Fertilizer Tomatoes Lettuce Peas

AGGRAND 453 55 318

Organic competitor 457 39 194

Control 157 24 213

AGGRAND over competitor -1% 29% 39%

Table 12: Total Yield (by number) in the competitive plots

Fertilizer Tomatoes Lettuce Peas

AGGRAND 248.08 10.48 1.57

COMPETITOR 234.04 7.57 1.30

Control 98.88 3.45 1.17

AGGRAND over competitor 6% 28% 17%

Table 13: Total Yield (by weight in pounds) in the competitive plots

Yield Summary / Weather Observations


27/36


Graph 1

Graph 2

Avg 1909 - 2010

2010

2011

2012

Avg 1909 - 2010

2010

2011

2012


28/36


Graph 3

Graph 4

Precipitation during the 2012 growing season was marked by extremes May and June provided

excessive precipitation, especially on June 19 and 20 when 836 inches (2123 cm) o rain ell

The storm moved seeds out o the seedbeds and plots and caused physical stress on the tomato

plants Overall precipitation was above average or the 2012 growing season However, July through

September showed much lower than normal rainall amounts, which required regular irrigation o the

garden plots See Graphs 4 and 5

Avg. Minimum and Maximum Temperatures (F)

Avg 1909 - 2010

2010

2011

2012

Avg. 1909 - 2010 2010 2011 2012


29/36


Soil Analysis and Respiration

Soil respiration is an indicator o microbial activity and soil health This was measured to determine ione ertilizing regime was more eective in obtaining a response rom the soil microbial community

Table 14 and Graph 6 summarize the respiration o soil samples collected during the spring and all

o 2012 As the data reveals, the respiration in the AGGRAND plot is greater than the control and

competitive plots, and also varies depending on the season The soil samples collected in the autumn

had a longer period o reduced moisture, thus reducing the microbial activity within the samples

Graph 5

Table 14

Plot Date Carbon Dioxide Level (PPM) Colormetric Reading

AGGRAND 5/10/2012 52.9 3.33

Control 5/10/2012 45.1 3.03

Competitive 5/10/2012 45.1 3.03

AGGRAND 10/4/2012 35.1 2.52

Control 10/4/2012 32.2 2.37

Competitive 10/4/2012 18.0 1.68

S Anayss and Rspratn

Avg. 1909 - 2010 2010 2011 2012


30/36


Graph 6

As with any cropping system there is removal o vegetation in the orm o ruit, roots and stems

At the end o this growing season, most o the vegetative materials were removed rom the plot ater

harvest Soil analyses are conducted at the beginning and end o every growing season to determine

the relative health o the soil, the impact o the crops growing on the plot and to determine i the

ertilizing programs are maintaining or enhancing nutrient levels

Soil samples were taken in April 2010, when no inputs or growth activity had taken place in the

growth plots Since then, soil samples have been obtained prior to planting and ater harvest

The samples obtained in April and September 2012 refect the composted manure input o

October 2011 (AGGRAND, 2012)

Comparing the initial soil samples taken during April 2010 and the latest samples rom September

2012, nitrate nitrogen is the only nutrient that appreciably increased since the 2011 growing season

This could be attributed to the microbial processing o the composted manure (AGGRAND, 2012)

Because o the mechanisms o plant growth and natural weathering processes, a number o soil

nutrients decreased in all plots Sulur levels were reduced in all plots, along with iron in the

AGGRAND and control plots Copper and boron levels are comparable in all plots, with manganese

showing higher levels in the AGGRAND plot Sodium, a highly leachable species, continues to bereduced in the AGGRAND and control plots, most likely rom precipitation and water movement

through the soil The competitive plot sodium levels increased ater the 2012 growing season,

indicating a possible infuence o the organic competitor ertilizer When compared to the soils in the

control and competitive plots, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and nitrate levels are higher in the

AGGRAND plots See Graphs 7 - 10


31/36


Graph 7

Graph 8


32/36


Graph 9

Graph 10


33/36


Overall, the 2012 Vegetable Productivity Study revealed that the AGGRAND ertilization program,

as outlined in The Gardening Guide (AGGRAND, 2010), increased vegetable yield in terms o number

and total weight over the competitive organic and control plots The average weight and size o some

o the AGGRAND vegetables were slightly smaller than the control or organic-ertilized produce,

but not signicantly

The organic competitor ertilizer is comprised o a blend o liquid hydrolyzed sh, Chilean nitrate and

seaweed that readily mixes with water and is easily applied Application is requent, with addition o

the product every week during the growing season The AGGRAND system enhances the soil

environment and provides necessary nutrients, but requires the grower to monitor plant growth, fower

bloom and ruit development or timely ertilizer applications Timely additions o ertilizers and soil

amendments are important when the plant is expending energy when developing fowers and ruit

Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium ratios (N, P, K) o the ertilizers employed in this study were

4-3-3, 0-12-0 and 0-0-8 or the AGGRAND program, and (4-4-1) or the organic competitor ertilizer

Both ertilizer systems tout that the products are natural or organic, and infuence the soil in similar

ways Organic competitor products recommend a dilution rate signicantly lower than the AGGRAND

products, which is apparent when the products are mixed with water The organic competitor produces

a translucent liquid; while the AGGRAND product yields an opaque mixture that provides morenutrients to the plants and soil Mix ratios or the competitive product were obtained rom the

manuacturers product label or website The organic competitor oers similar products that recommend

application every other week and once per week during the growing season Per previous work with

competitive products, it was decided to apply the highest recommended rate to determine the

perormance comparison with the AGGRAND system

In 2011 there was diculty establishing plants rom seed due to the high temperature o the heated mats

As a result o installing thermostats set at 80F (267C) on the heated growth mats, the tomato starts had

excellent germination rate ranging rom 86% to 95% Due to cut worm problems in 2011, additional starts

were grown in 2012 or potential replacement in case o pests, hail or other environmental impacts The

transplant process went airly well or the Competitive Plot tomatoes and produced satisying yields Over

580 pounds o tomatoes were produced in these plots The AGGRAND tomato plants received our

ertilizer applications in the eld, while the organic competitor plants received a total o seven eldapplications Nevertheless, the AGGRAND program produced, 6 percent by weight, more tomatoes than

the organic competitor This shows that the correct product mixture and application timing can increase

yields with less labor For uture tomato work, more time will be taken to harden these plants prior to

outdoor planting; protection will be provided with Kozy Coats Insulating Plant Protectors

Snap peas were a convenient crop to evaluate because they have large seeds, are easy to grow,

and, in this case, had ample room to trellis As mentioned previously, elevated temperatures produced

some diculty in germination, plus the rain event in June caused fooding throughout the plots,

and moved some o the seeds out o the planting area The AGGRAND plot had considerable yield

improvement over the organic competitor or both numbers and weight o snap peas Planting in late

May would provide a better yield

AGGRAND-ertilized lettuce yields were substantially higher than the organic competitor This directlycorrelated to the number o seeds that germinated in each plot It appears the AGGRAND-ertilized

plot retained moisture better, provided a higher concentration o growth hormones, keeping the seed

cooler and acilitating better germination The organic competitor plants were slightly heavier, but with

the increased number o AGGRAND plants, the yields were in avor o AGGRAND

The AGGRAND plot continues to show overall better nutrient levels than the competitive plot with

higher phosphorus, potassium and magnesium Nitrate - nitrogen increased in all plots as a result o

adding the same amount o composted manure, but the AGGRAND plot tested higher or the nutrient,

indicating that the mineralization process via microbial activity is higher in this soil This is supported

by higher CO2

respiration values or this plot

CoNClUSioNS


34/36


REFERENCES

Albrecht, WA (1996) The Albrecht papers. (Vol 1) Metairie, LA: Acres USA

AGGRAND (2011) 2010 Vegetable Productivity Study. G-2851 Superior, WI: AMSOIL, INC

AGGRAND (2012) 2011 Vegetable Productivity Study. G-2957 Superior, WI: AMSOIL, INC

AGGRAND (2010) The gardening guide. G-1292 Superior, WI: AMSOIL, INC

Brady, NC, (1974) The Nature and Properties o Soils. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co, Inc

Carson, T, (2004) Gol Course Management. 72: 28

Havlin, JL, JD Beaton, SL Tisdale, and WL Nelson (2005) Soil ertility and ertilizers, an

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

Haney, R L, W F Brinton, and E Evans (2008) Soil CO2

respiration: comparison o chemical

titration, CO2

IRGA analysis, and the Solvita gel system Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.

23:16

Haney, R L, W F Brinton, and E Evans 2008 Estimating soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous

mineralization rom short-term carbon dioxide respiration Communications in Soil Science and Plant

Analysis. 39: 2706-2720

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

Murdock, L, D Call, and J James (2004) Comparison and use o chlorophyll meters on wheat

(refectance vs. transmittance/absorbance). Lexington, KY: University o Kentucky Extension

NASA (2011) Chlorophyll Meters Aid Plant Nutrient Management

Available at: http://wwwstinasagov/tto/Spino2009/er_10html

National Stone Association (1986) Aglime act book. Washington, DC: National Stone Association

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

Taiz, L and E Zeiger (1991) Plant Physiology. Redwood City, CA:

The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc

ReFeReNCeS


35/36



36/36

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

Referral #_________________________________

AGGRAND Natural Liquid Kelp andSulfate of Potash 0-0-8 Provides increased heat, cold and drought tolerance

Decreases susceptibility to insect attack and inection by disease-causing organisms

Aids in early plant growth and development

Promotes early ripening, improves quality and extends shel-lie o ruits and vegetables Eective as a oliar eed or soil application

Washington State Department o Agriculture (WSDA)Listed or use in organic crop production

AGGRAND Fertilizer Organic Series 4-3-3 Multi-purpose produces excellent results on fowers, ruits, vegetables, lawns, trees and crops

Contains menhaden sh emulsion, North Atlantic Kelp, sulate o potash and rock phosphate

Rock phosphate provides a natural source o phosphorus and calcium

Eective as a oliar eed or soil application

OMRI Listed product meets the USDA National Organic Plan (NOP) grower requirements

Registered with the Caliornia Department o Agriculture Organic Input Materials program

AGGRAND Natural Fertilizer 4-3-3 Multi-purpose excellent or fowers, ruits, vegetables, lawns, trees and crops

Contains menhaden sh emulsion, North Atlantic Kelp, sulate o potash and blood meal

Eective as a oliar eed or soil application

Stimulates soil microbial activity

Promotes plant vigor which contributes to disease and stress tolerance

USDA Bio-Preerred Product 100 percent bio-based

AGGRAND Natural Liquid Lime

Very ne calcitic limestone in suspension Eective as a oliar or soil application improves plantscellular structure

For lawns, pastures and hay elds to supply calcium(additional soil liming may be required on highly acidic soils)

Improves soil structure and the environment or soil organisms

AGGRAND Natural Liquid Bone Meal0-12-0 Provides a readily available source o phosphorus and

calcium

Releases slowly over the growing season

Perect or all fowering bulbs and transplants Ideal or root and ruit crops

Documents

AGGRAND® 2012 Vegetable Productivity Study