Pros & Cons Of Granular And Liquid Fertilizers

Dec 30, 2016

By Jim Isleib, Michigan State University Extension

There are several ways to categorize fertilizers. One logical way to look at them is as “granulars” and “liquids.” For the purposes of this comparison, anhydrous ammonia (technically a liquid) will not be considered.

Dry fertilizers are generally incorporated into granules. Fertilizer blends can be created by mixing individual granular fertilizer of known analysis (e.g., 46-0-0, 18-46-0 and 0-0-60) in the proper ratio to create the desired blend. Dry fertilizers can be ground applied as a broadcast; applied at planting as a band, often placed 2 inches to the side and 2 inches below the seed (2-by-2 placement); or applied as sidedress and cultivated shallowly into the soil. When farmers have access to custom blended granular fertilizer, they can fine-tune their crop fertility program and potentially improve crop production efficiency. If all goes well, this can result in more profitable crop production.

Liquid fertilizers have greatly increased in popularity in recent years. They can be either ground applied or foliar applied. Liquids can be broadcast, used in a band application at planting and as mid-season sidedress. When foliar applied, the plant nutrients are absorbed through the leaves and are more readily available for plant use than if ground applied. However, the availability of foliar applied nutrients is short-lived and not continuous for the rest of the growing season. Foliar applications are a good way to correct mid-season deficiencies or supplement soil applied nutrients.

Although there is no difference in the total amount of nutrients supplied by either granular or liquid fertilizer for a specified plant nutrient application, there are differences:

Spatial: The distance from plant roots to fertilizer nutrients. Less mobile nutrients like phosphorus can’t get closer than the individual granule containing them. In liquid form, they are more mobile in the soil water solution.
Salt content: Granular fertilizers can be “hot.” Roots can steer away from a band of granular fertilizer that contains high levels of nitrogen and potassium. Liquids are often preferred for “starter.”
Consistency: The nutrient content is identical in every drop of liquid fertilizer, while granulars have individual nutrient components in each granule.
Equipment: The cost of converting equipment to handle liquid fertilizer can be an obstacle.

Here is a short list of advantages of both fertilizer types.

Liquid

Ease of handling and application (once set up)
Ease of blending
Uniformity of application
Starter and in-season application
Blend with crop protection products

Granular

Cheaper in bulk
Easier to store (does not “settle out” over time or “salt out” in cold weather)
More efficient for heavy pre-plant applications
Slow-release options (polymer-coated urea)

Michigan State University Extension does not necessarily recommend one type of fertilizer over another. However, farmers should consider costs, ease and convenience of application, and potential plant response when making fertilizer decisions.

Source: msu.edu

Video: From Conventional to Regenerative: Will Groeneveld’s Journey Back to the Land

"You realize you've got a pretty finite number of years to do this. If you ever want to try something new, you better do it."

That mindset helped Will Groeneveld take a bold turn on his Alberta grain farm. A lifelong farmer, Will had never heard of regenerative agriculture until 2018, when he attended a seminar by Kevin Elmy that shifted his worldview. What began as curiosity quickly turned into a deep exploration of how biology—not just chemistry—shapes the health of our soils, crops and ecosystems.

In this video, Will candidly reflects on his family’s farming history, how the operation evolved from a traditional mixed farm to grain-only, and how the desire to improve the land pushed him to invite livestock back into the rotation—without owning a single cow.

Today, through creative partnerships and a commitment to the five principles of regenerative agriculture, Will is reintroducing diversity, building soil health and extending living roots in the ground for as much of the year as possible. Whether it’s through intercropping, zero tillage (which he’s practiced since the 1980s) or managing forage for visiting cattle, Will’s approach is a testament to continuous learning and a willingness to challenge old norms.

Will is a participant in the Regenerative Agriculture Lab (RAL), a social innovation process bringing together producers, researchers, retailers and others to co-create a resilient regenerative agriculture system in Alberta. His story highlights both the potential and humility required to farm with nature, not against it.