Saving $$ on Maintenance

[Dan Dingman]

Brad - The wear and tear we place on the equipment and the golf course cleaning up leaves every fall is something that is rarely talked about. The fuel and labor cost associated with leaf cleanup usually is the root of the topic. The funds to properly maintain the tree population are difficult to find in a budget these days.

I know of one Club here in Detroit with only a few trees on the site that historically has a significantly lower budget than others in the area and still remains a top 100 course every year.

Most members at private clubs are sensitive to tree removal and even if you could prove the long term cost savings and improved turf by removing trees, they still wouldn't buy into the concept.

DD

[JMEvensky]

From a layman who's mostly been involved from the payor (Board member) side,thanks for starting this topic.Too many members think that trying to save maintenance costs is the last thing a Super thinks about when it's frequently the first.

Regarding a budget where ~ 40% is manpower,is there really any  way to substantively move the needle other than reducing payroll?

[JSPayne]

You guys are hitting all around what I'm getting at. I try to pride myself on the fact that our operations are pretty damn efficient. Yet if you look at an expense breakdown of non-fixed costs, maintenance always seems to rise to the top.

So what we're getting down to is "bare bones" maintenance. I'd love to hear from supers or members of a club of a similar business model as mine and what they're operating at in regards to crew size and overall budget. I could probably take care of the bare basics with a guy or two left, but that doesnt' leave much wiggle room for unplanned destructive events like storms, irrigation breaks, major disease outbreak, etc and all need time, labor and attention to be remedied.

Bradley.....you're probably right that my department doesn't make up as large a percent as I think....but I think I was thinking of non-fixed costs, which seems to be what they like to go after first. I can guarantee you that the rent my management company pays to the owner of this property is the largest expense, but it's fixed, like several other large expenses, and they rarely try to go after savings in those areas (or they may just be alot harder to achieve).

[JSPayne]

Sorry if I laugh a little Adam.....but if you ask most supers, 7-9 times a week is VERY minimal.

Feel free to laugh. But, The most profitable course I've ever seen, mowed greens every other day. They only did 113k rounds annually, so I wouldn't necessarily use them as your model.


Asking most supers in an interesting comment. It implies the majority are always right. I think that is one of the flaws in the status quo.

You asked for ideas on how to save money, laughing at a good one, demonstrates there's a deep problem within golf and it maintenance expectations. I suspect that problem's root is coming from a textbook.  

Adam....I apologize for laughing. That was probably the wrong use of words. Perhaps I should try and only mow greens every other day or less, but I have a hard time grappling with that in regards to fundamentals of turfgrass maintenance. Not only does it seem to me like it would detract from the aesthetic, quality, consistancy and playability of the putting surface, it doesn't seem to fit with the model of ideal care for the turfgrass plant from an agronomic standpoint for the reasons listed above (not cutting too much of the leaf blade at one time). You can get away with mowing turf that is kept at a higher HOC (height of cut) less often because the ratio of leaf blade you're cutting off is less becaue the leaf blade is larger/longer. But like I said, if you're mowing at 0.125-0.140", one third of that is 0.04" and I would find it hard to believe that any healthy, actively growing turfgrass plant doesn't grow at least that much in one day.

If there's anything to challange I guess, it's this "one-third" rule. To which I would say....test this on your own front lawn (because I have). Let your turf grow to 3" tall, then mow off more than 1" of it and notice the results. Usually, I will get some yellowing of the grass a day or two following putting that type of stress on the plant. And even if it doesn't yellow, think of the sudden reduction in surface area that plant has to perform respiration and transpiration, and the extra energy that has to be spent healing the wound creating by cutting the leaf blade. Then think of all the extra wear and tear a golf green is getting that your front lawn is not.

We can argue this point for some time I think, but the science is solid, and I stand by it. There are plenty of things you CAN do to save expenses, but many of them aren't necessarily in the best interest of the plant, the overall quality and playablity of the product, and can end up costing you much more dollars in the long run than continuing proper and ideal maintenance practices even during bad or "down" periods.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Gang mow, believe it or not you can get decent quality as long as you have a lightweight trim everything out.

Never ever edge a bunker again. Use herbicides like round-up at half strength or contacts and train someone to keep the edges burned back. It actually looks good and is a lot more environmentally friendly then it sounds.

get rid of the walk mowers

Don't over seed

No designer fertility programs

Try and get away from constant foliars and go back to the basics using organic greens ferts,

Best growth regulator in the world is less N.

Take out trees that require mowing around, trimming around, or spraying around, and especially if they cause you to spend more time trying to keep turf in the shade.

Be diligent with traffic control

Make your own compost and use in divot mix, sod repairs, dressing thin areas

Stagger work hours so your guys are mowing with fewest players on the course...do what ever you can to get work done with out players interrupting.

Question every expense, stop all cash leaks. don't pay $2,500 for computer irrigation support when you can have a spare computer setting there with software already loaded for 1/5th of that.

Do your own pump station PM

Keep a very tight fuel log...it has a way of disappearing

Don’t buy parts like bearings and bushings from your turf supplier. They’ll be half the cost or less at a bearing shop. Don’t buy new starters when they go out, find a small shop that will rebuild…I just saved $550 last week doing that. New brushes and clean up cost me $49, John Deere wanted $600 for new

Be honest in employee evaluation. Employees that can do it all are more valuable then the guy that can only rake bunkers. Pay your good guys more and trim the weak.

Don’t be a warehouse. Don’t buy more than you need of anything. Keeping business afloat right now is all about cash flow, you can’t pay the electric bill with bags of fert, spare reel mowers, or extra irrigation parts. Rarely is there a dire emergency that you can’t go without for a day or two.

Shop for bargains and don’t be afraid to ask for a discount and terms.

Look facility wide at labor waste. Way too many courses have cart attendants or other types of employees who sit around half the time. They can be trained to help maintain clubhouse landscaping and such.

[Steve Okula]

     First, I should qualify my statement that I mow daily. That is an absolute maximum, in the high season, like May/June. We are closed Mondays, so it's never more than 6 times per week, and more often than not it's alternated with rolling from April-Oct or dew brushing Nov-Mar.

     Back to PGR's. I'll use tees as an example. We have 5 acres of tee area (36 holes, RT Jones Sr.). To mow takes 2 men an 8 hour day. Before PGR's I was doing it 3 times per week. The labor, with all taxes and social charges here in France costs $20 per hour.
    So the cost of mowing tees is 2 X 8 X 20 or $320 each time, 12 times per month, $3840, plus fuel and wear and tear on the machines.

    Primo is applied in two applications per month, total cost of chemical is about $400, plus one guy on the sprayer knocks out all the tees in 4 hours, so the cost of treatment is around $500/month with fuel.

   With Primo, I can reduce the mowing to 2 times/wk., saving 4 mowings per month, or $1280, for a saving of $720/month, plus less fuel, spare parts, inconvenience to golfers, and extended equipment life.

    Further, I don't believe Primo interferes with turf recovery from divots, ball marks, traffic, or aerations. It inhibits cell elongation, not cell division. The turf is stil growing, only less so vertically and more horizontally. Under Primo, the turf increases growth laterally, where it is most useful, in my observations, that is.

[Adrian_Stiff]

To qualify my statements re mowing less frequently...there will be a drop in standards, but it can be a choice between some business or no business. with less fertiiser use you will will have less growth, I am sure every other day mowing and 50% reductions in other mowings is achieveable, utimately you need to cut the abour force. JS if you have 10 staff, its your call what you do if you have to cut from 10 to 7. DonM summed it up pretty much, and forget about pretty bunker edges, maybe golfers will get to like it.
You supers no your limits and its your call how best to manage with a 10-20-30% cut in Labour. In the UK we can manage with 4 persons on some courses, though I accept US situs are different.

[JSPayne]

Adrian, Steve and Don (especially Don!)......all excellent advice/points.

So this discussion now begs the question.....obviously achieving some of these reductions will cause a decrease (or change at least) in the aesthetics or playability of the course (or both). What effect do you think the visible and tangible changes will have on the golfing public....specifically the mid-high end daily fee customers like I have? I know we all want to see a reduction in expectations for mainly how a golf course should look (thinking of the new, great golf ratings guidelines of "brown is the new green"), but do we honestly think the public will embrace this? Will they care enough about Round-up sprayed bunker edges, higher heights of cuts, shaggier playing surfaces, unmaintained bunkers etc etc enough to seek out somewhere else to play.....or a better value for their dollar? Can we continue to charge the same fees we are currently if we choose to go down this path of reduced maintenance? Because if we can honestly say that the public is not ready for these changes, and will view it all as a reduction in quality and experience without a reduction in cost, won't we just dig ourselves in to a deeper hole by causing loss of play and further loss of revenue?

[Adam Clayman]

JS- Re color;

I suspect you over estimate your public clientele. They won't notice the color change, but will notice the speed change. As long as there's consistency they really have no right to complain because it's the same for everyone.

When I played the course that had the every other day pattern, It required adapting to slower speeds. It was just another challenge of my abilities and awareness level.  I assume you punch your greens, spring and fall? Do they bitch about that? or, Accept it as a necessary evil?
Wouldn't they do the same if the regime was altered to save the course from closing?

I get your point about the percentage of blade cut, but, It's like the old Roy Rodgers quote. "The return of principle is more important than the return on principle".

 

[Bradley Anderson]

Brad - The wear and tear we place on the equipment and the golf course cleaning up leaves every fall is something that is rarely talked about. The fuel and labor cost associated with leaf cleanup usually is the root of the topic. The funds to properly maintain the tree population are difficult to find in a budget these days.

Every tree should be pruned once every five years, and that can cost $50,000 a year if you have a lot of trees.

From about mid-September through the end of the season you could probably mow the rough 3 times, but with leaf mulching you might mow it 12 times. And some areas you might mow 20 times because the leaves get so heavy that balls get lost. Thats a lot of fuel, labor, and wear and tear on the equipment.

I used to work at a Robert Bruce Harris course. Harris has a lot of detractors on here, but he was one of the only architects, maybe the first, to actually include tree plantings,by species and location on his blue prints. And he had a good sense of where trees can be placed to provide the best vistas and playing corridor widths, with the least amount of trees required. That made a big difference in the cost of maintaining that course. It felt like it had just the right amount of trees, but not too many.

[JSPayne]

Adam.....golfers know aeration of the greens has to happen, but there is so much competition close by that they just call around to find another course that hasn't aerified yet or did it a long time ago. We have financial data that can back up the fact that we lose $20,000 of revenue in the two weeks following any major aeration.

Golfers may adapt.....in time....and I certainly hope they do, as it would make every super's job a bit easier to manage I think. But I already see and hear about on a daily basis the effects a change that is even purely aesthetic (like bermuda going dormant and turning brown.....play decreases and complaints increase because the majority of golfers think the grass is dying and don't understand turf dormancy or the benefits of not overseeding) to know that even minor changes, with public play more than private (because there is more of an opportunity to educate private members as a captivated audience as opposed to one-time public golfers), can greatly influence a golfer's PERCIEVED experience and the likelihood that they'll return to patronize our course again.

Please keep in mind that I'm not being resistant to change, but I've learned alot about public golfers, their perceptions, what drives them to spend money and what effect various management decisions can make on the revenue stream. It's a very complicated, difficult movement to make from what HAS BEEN to what SHOULD BE in the arena of public golf.

Please keep this discourse going as we are, as many clubs at this time are, going through strategic planning sessions to try to take steps in the right directions and keep this kind of business model sustainable. Any and all ideas and strategies are welcome!

P.S. I whole-heartedly agree with all the tree discussion points being presented. Luckily, for the time being, we only have baby trees. But the issues of the effects of extensive tree planting (or even just of native stands) can easily be another topic entirely with pages and pages of comments.

[Bradley Anderson]

JS,


I was in a market where three new golf courses were built within a five mile radius of me, while the amount golfers in that region did not increase. So I understand what you are saying about not wanting to drive business away. Actually, I got to where I knew when the guys around me were aerifying and I avoided aerifying then to capture those rounds.

[Michael Rossi]

"I'm a super, and 7-9 times/week sounds like a lot. It sounds like you could use a solid Primo program.

I've saved money with PGR's, a lot of money over the years. Reduced mowing frequencies mean less people required on staff, savings on fuel and equipment repar/replacement, and less inconvenience to the customers.

On greens, with PGR's, I triplex daily, empty baskets once at the end, and stimp consistently over 10 feet.  "

I agree, PGR's are possibly the only product used that costs more if not used.  The savings is not only in labor but wear and tear on equipment and fuel.

I mow (.125" -.140") with walkers 5-6 times per week (4-6 men) and roll 1-2 times per week with a triplex (1 man). Back off the water to maintain the speeds the night before a non mow day, more saving, water $ and hydro $.

Use the PGR not only on the primary playing surfaces but very useful on bunker faces and steep slopes that require hand work. This comes in handy in fall when staffing levels are low. I have experienced not mowing bluegrass bunker faces for 6 weeks with the use of PGR. 

Fertilizer cut backs could help but I'm not one to say for your situation. The least amount of applications possible has helped me, for example 2 rough apps per season as opposed to 4. If I understand you correctly you are getting a lot of shoot growth, perhaps a hard look at your program may reveal a couple $.

Sounds like you have things pretty trim already, going to be a lot of work to find more saving on the bottom line with items like fuel and shipping costing more everyday. Its like getting your handicap down, going from a 15 - 8 is easier than from 8-1.

Happy hunting and great thread.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm glad someone here jumped on the PGR thing. Their mode of action seem to be a bit misunderstood and because of that, I think many people assume they "inhibit" growth in terms of recovery.

As Steve noted, Primo is a Auxin inhibitor which inhibits cell elongation caused by the plant hormone auxin. This allows the plant to tiller and have more horizontal growth without much leaf elongation. The plant still has the carbohydrates for growth, they are just used differently.

PGRs are also useful to complement some fungicides. Brad Anderson and I have talked about this, and there is some data to suggest that Primo can be a great amendment to an Anthracnose control program.

[Kyle Harris]

I'm glad someone here jumped on the PGR thing. Their mode of action seem to be a bit misunderstood and because of that, I think many people assume they "inhibit" growth in terms of recovery.

As Steve noted, Primo is a Auxin inhibitor which inhibits cell elongation caused by the plant hormone auxin. This allows the plant to tiller and have more horizontal growth without much leaf elongation. The plant still has the carbohydrates for growth, they are just used differently.

PGRs are also useful to complement some fungicides. Brad Anderson and I have talked about this, and there is some data to suggest that Primo can be a great amendment to an Anthracnose control program.

I confused Giberrelic Acid (GA) with Auxin. Two people corrected me politely offline. Primo is a GA inhibitor.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

DonM's list of reduction is really fantastic. Every superintendent should be able to find something on that list that will help them.

In the past three season we have quit doing much of the extra stuff on the edges of the course that costs a lot of money. We don't edge bunkers, we don't trim around trees. These are things the golfers are never going to notice as long as you continue to provide them with quality playing surfaces.

When it comes to fertility, do you need to spend money on expensive bags of fertilizer or can you get the job done with a $12 bag of ammonium sulfate? Can you make reductions to your fertility program? If you fertilizer fairways once/month can you go every 6 weeks or every 8 weeks?

PGR's are a must if you want to save $$$'s. We mow our playing surfaces, besides greens 2x/week and with PGRs and low N there is zero loss of quality. We have even backed off on mowing greens. We mowed 5 days/week last season and probably could have done 4. We always rolled on the days we didn't mow. One of the days was Friday and not once all season did we get a complaint about lack of quality on a Friday. Again low N and PGRs are the key.

I don't think cutting costs has to mean a loss of quality. We have cut costs the past three season on our inputs and the course has gotten better.

How about aeration. If you core aerate, do you need to? Or can solid-tining only work in your situation?

[Jeff Johnson]

You can cut back on labor hours but not on the number of guys you need to manage the course.  If you are working them 8 hour days cut that back to 7.5 or 7 hour work days.  You will be amazed how much $$ that saves.  It reduces the OT significantly while not reducing the number of staff you need during the most critical time of the day, the morning.  I do not run as small of a crew as you do.  I need a minimum of 18 guys in the morning, but do I really need them all day?  This year we went to 7.5 hour work days and saved $42,000 on labor.  That is all OT dollars and the course did not suffer one bit.  Seems like the last 30 minutes of the day was a big waste of time for us. 

[Steve Okula]

Several people have referred to "low nitrogen", but that is a realtive term. "Low N" for a Poa green on heavy soil has nothing to do with what would be considered "low N" on a sand based, bermudagrass green.

When I went to school in a previous century, conventional wisdom dictated that, to maintain acceptable quality, bentgrass golf greens needed one pound of nitrogen per one thousand square feet per growing month, or 6-8 lbs./N/1000'² per year for most of the temperate U.S. 

Today, most of us don't put down half that much, and our greens are better for it. For example, on sand-based bent/Poa greens, I do about 4 ounces of N/1000'² per growing month.

I would be interested to hear what the othe supers consider to be "low N".

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

I was kind of surprised to hear how low the N was at a few of my cousres, and the fact that the superintendents might have put down 1/2 lb of N early, maybe another quarter pound in June, and then lay off for the rest of the year, rather than spoon feed each month.

[Kyle Harris]

Several people have referred to "low nitrogen", but that is a realtive term. "Low N" for a Poa green on heavy soil has nothing to do with what would be considered "low N" on a sand based, bermudagrass green.

When I went to school in a previous century, conventional wisdom dictated that, to maintain acceptable quality, bentgrass golf greens needed one pound of nitrogen per one thousand square feet per growing month, or 6-8 lbs./N/1000'² per year for most of the temperate U.S. 

Today, most of us don't put down half that much, and our greens are better for it. For example, on sand-based bent/Poa greens, I do about 4 ounces of N/1000'² per growing month.

I would be interested to hear what the othe supers consider to be "low N".

Steve,

Fresh out of the classroom at Rutgers from this past fall. We were told that your method was considered a bit dated. 3-4#/1000 of N+ was the standard prescription, with obvious adjustments for Spec Greens.

For the laymen: Soil type is a factor in the ability for nutrients to be held. Sand has the lowest nutrient holding capacity while clay has the highest. Spec Greens are essentially a tradeoff between nutrient holding capacity and drainage.

The problem with talking about Low N and Nitrogen rates is that there are many factors which contribute to the amount of Nitrogen in the soil, and how much of that nitrogen gets to the plant. I believe, that so long as the plant remains healthy - Nitrogen input is more a function of disease control than direct plant health.

[Ian Larson]

Several people have referred to "low nitrogen", but that is a realtive term. "Low N" for a Poa green on heavy soil has nothing to do with what would be considered "low N" on a sand based, bermudagrass green.

When I went to school in a previous century, conventional wisdom dictated that, to maintain acceptable quality, bentgrass golf greens needed one pound of nitrogen per one thousand square feet per growing month, or 6-8 lbs./N/1000'² per year for most of the temperate U.S. 

Today, most of us don't put down half that much, and our greens are better for it. For example, on sand-based bent/Poa greens, I do about 4 ounces of N/1000'² per growing month.

I would be interested to hear what the othe supers consider to be "low N".

I'd also be interested in hearing this.

[Ian Larson]

DonM's list of reduction is really fantastic. Every superintendent should be able to find something on that list that will help them.

In the past three season we have quit doing much of the extra stuff on the edges of the course that costs a lot of money. We don't edge bunkers, we don't trim around trees. These are things the golfers are never going to notice as long as you continue to provide them with quality playing surfaces.

When it comes to fertility, do you need to spend money on expensive bags of fertilizer or can you get the job done with a $12 bag of ammonium sulfate? Can you make reductions to your fertility program? If you fertilizer fairways once/month can you go every 6 weeks or every 8 weeks?

PGR's are a must if you want to save $$$'s. We mow our playing surfaces, besides greens 2x/week and with PGRs and low N there is zero loss of quality. We have even backed off on mowing greens. We mowed 5 days/week last season and probably could have done 4. We always rolled on the days we didn't mow. One of the days was Friday and not once all season did we get a complaint about lack of quality on a Friday. Again low N and PGRs are the key.

I don't think cutting costs has to mean a loss of quality. We have cut costs the past three season on our inputs and the course has gotten better.

How about aeration. If you core aerate, do you need to? Or can solid-tining only work in your situation?

So do I buy 5 gallons of concentrated and chelated ammonium sulfate for 60 bucks or do I spend the extra  time getting 5 bags of 12 dollar agriculture grade ammonium sulfate solublized and into suspension?

Either way gets the job done but which one is more efficient in time, product ,and in extension, final cost? If only 1 single 12 dollar bag was used this could be the way but it would still be farmer grade product. 

[JSPayne]

Several people have referred to "low nitrogen", but that is a realtive term. "Low N" for a Poa green on heavy soil has nothing to do with what would be considered "low N" on a sand based, bermudagrass green.

When I went to school in a previous century, conventional wisdom dictated that, to maintain acceptable quality, bentgrass golf greens needed one pound of nitrogen per one thousand square feet per growing month, or 6-8 lbs./N/1000'² per year for most of the temperate U.S. 

Today, most of us don't put down half that much, and our greens are better for it. For example, on sand-based bent/Poa greens, I do about 4 ounces of N/1000'² per growing month.

I would be interested to hear what the othe supers consider to be "low N".

I'd also be interested in hearing this.

Agreed that "low N" is a relative term. As I stated before, I have USGA spec greens that are ~90% 'Dominant' bentgrass (~10% unwanted Poa) and the past two years I've been here I've used 2 - 2.5# N/1000 sq. ft. on the greens annually. On my nearly 100% ryegrass tees/fairways/roughs, I used about 3.5-4.5#N/1000 sq. ft. annually.

The relative part comes in when I have heard of some supers using less than 1#N/1000 on greens and I personally know two other situations, one who used 0.25#N/1000 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR on their fairways and another private course with kikuyu fairways that has gotten by for over a decade with less than 1#N/1000.

I currently use Primo and Trimmit on my greens and it does help keep them quick, smooth and consistant. I have yet to expand the use of PGRs to the rest of the course because I don't think I can get the cost-benefit to work with current equipment. My limitation currently is that I only have one 150-gal sprayer and the logistics and play volume of my course make it such that it takes one man about 3 full days to spray all 18 fairways. I could add in the rest of the math, but the ROI is just not there with current practices. I'm looking into getting a more time-efficient method of applying the Primo (maybe an investment in a bigger sprayer or something....but investment/capital dollars are even harder to come by right now).

[Don_Mahaffey]

DonM's list of reduction is really fantastic. Every superintendent should be able to find something on that list that will help them.

In the past three season we have quit doing much of the extra stuff on the edges of the course that costs a lot of money. We don't edge bunkers, we don't trim around trees. These are things the golfers are never going to notice as long as you continue to provide them with quality playing surfaces.

When it comes to fertility, do you need to spend money on expensive bags of fertilizer or can you get the job done with a $12 bag of ammonium sulfate? Can you make reductions to your fertility program? If you fertilizer fairways once/month can you go every 6 weeks or every 8 weeks?

PGR's are a must if you want to save $$$'s. We mow our playing surfaces, besides greens 2x/week and with PGRs and low N there is zero loss of quality. We have even backed off on mowing greens. We mowed 5 days/week last season and probably could have done 4. We always rolled on the days we didn't mow. One of the days was Friday and not once all season did we get a complaint about lack of quality on a Friday. Again low N and PGRs are the key.

I don't think cutting costs has to mean a loss of quality. We have cut costs the past three season on our inputs and the course has gotten better.

How about aeration. If you core aerate, do you need to? Or can solid-tining only work in your situation?

So do I buy 5 gallons of concentrated and chelated ammonium sulfate for 60 bucks or do I spend the extra  time getting 5 bags of 12 dollar agriculture grade ammonium sulfate solublized and into suspension?

Either way gets the job done but which one is more efficient in time, product ,and in extension, final cost? If only 1 single 12 dollar bag was used this could be the way but it would still be farmer grade product. 

Ian,
Just be careful about generalizing all "farmer grade" or "ag" grade products as inferior to turf marketed products. Yes, some ag products will not be as efficient as turf products, but others are. For instance, I get solution grade urea and ammonium sulfate from my ag dealer. When I spray base soluble products I use citric acid and other acid products as chelating agents when I’m adding products like ferrous sulfate or other micros. Let’s not act like chelating is some sort of magic trick. Do I always use these on my greens, no, but when I spray my fwys for whatever reason I always add about .2N because I like what I get and sometimes it helps, with the addition of other nutrients like fe, to mask yellowing you sometimes get from certain apps. Should I buy Ferramec or some other pre-mixed product instead at 5-10 times the cost? I don't think so and one of the reason is I have 80 acres of fwy. For me to get what I want with what I can afford I have do a little more than buy a jug...or 20.
BTW, the solution grade calcium nitrate, potassium nitrate, ammonium sulfate and urea I buy is just the shaker bottom stuff, same product as  the guys who put it in a pretty bag and call it something cool like K-power. Only difference mine costs 25% - 50% less then what my turf reps charges and comes in a plain white or brown bag.   

[Ian Larson]

Don,

You're absolutely right and one of the bigger points to that was chelation. If a chelating agent is added to a cheaper grade,citric acid being one of them, to help get the product into the plant easier.....then by all means going the raw material bag route should be considered. The most important thing is getting the product as quickly and efficiently as you can into the plant so money is not being wasted on leached or vaporized fertilizer.

The other big point is that most times Ive crunched numbers to see if I should go the cheaper ag-grade route or just buy it in the jug Ive always calculated it to come out as a wash. And usually the only time it was ever cheaper to use ag-grade was if I was getting some sort of special deal from the local fert plant on something that was probably old and breaking down or they needed to really push it off their site.

Taking Chris' $12 bag of ammonium sulfate for example....

1. Sure its $12 for 1 bag
2. Its not chelated, the plant will reject some of it.
3. Being ag-grade the salt index could be higher.
4. There is added time spent on the mix pad dumping it and getting it into solution.
5. There is the added cost to it if, in fact, he is adding a chelating agent.

6. At $12 a bag....8 x 20 lb. bags of 21-0-0 will be needed to fertilize, say, greens which is 3 acres (rough #) worth of area to put down .25 lbs N / 1000 sq ft

That comes down to $96.00...

...PLUS chelating agent costs (if used)
...PLUS the extra time spent on the mix pad putting it into solution


If I can get a $60 case (5 gallons) of concentrated 21-0-0 (ammonium sulfate) and spoonfeed greens at .10 lbs. of  chelated Nitrogen every few weeks Im not sure there are much more savings to be had. I also have a better peace of mind knowing the product is being used efficiently by the plant with nothing going to waste. Im not knocking ag-grade fertilizers and there are definetely savings to be had in certain situations. But I dont agree that using $12 bags of ammonium sulfate will always get the job done just as well and for cheaper....ever.