Which is better, polyenergetic net urea or large-grain urea?
Thread Content
Let’s discuss whether it’s better to use large particles or energy-absorbing nets when farmers apply fertilizer The prices of these two are similar, but which one actually has a better effect?
May I ask the original poster: What does “Juneng Network” mean? I’ve rarely heard of it before; please give me some information.
When applying fertilizer, farmers should use more large-grained particles; using more of them should yield better results
Polyenergy net urea is simply polyenergy urea; it is produced in Shandong, and it is a slow-release fertilizer to which polyaspartic acid has been added
Long-acting urea – urea with hydroquinone added; hydroquinone is toxic. This post was last edited by lxq700918 on 2009-3-2 22:46.]
Adding hydroquinone is not feasible due to its high toxicity. However, large particles and polyurea do not contain any toxic substances. As far as I know, these two types of urea have similar prices; they are both slow-release fertilizers. Their high cost means they are more expensive than ordinary urea. Yet it’s not clear which of the two has a better fertilizing effect. Last edited by lxq700918 on 2009-3-3 12:41.]
I also found through research that concentrated urea is better than large particles, as the latter suffer from significant loss; concentrated urea, when combined with polyaspartic acid, enhances the ability of plant roots to absorb N and P, resulting in faster growth and earlier maturation of crops, although it is more expensive.
I’m not sure. Is there any information available on the manufacturing process for 3476? Recommended to study*! Are there any relevant patent holders?
Regarding the comparison of the effects of concentrated urea and large particles, we obtained the results through experiments conducted in our own experimental fields. There’s no specific information; I didn’t know about it before, I only heard about it from my supervisor a few days ago.