![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Land Management Decisions, Inc. offers land "users" and generators of wastes some alternatives that are profitable and beneficial to land resources. Dr. Baker developed the "Baker Soil Test", (BST), which is recognized as an official method of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as "A Diagnostic Soil Test for Plant Growth and Food Chain Protection" (ASTM #D5435-93) |
| Dr. Dale E. Baker Professor of Soil Chemistry, (ret.) Penn State University President and Founder of Land Management Decisions State College, PA |
Mr. Bill Green Ammonia Hold Inc. P.O. Box 25403 Little Rock, AR 72221 Dear Bill: The attached results should make your day. I hope you do not try to claim all of the potentially beneficial properties that I have found for your product, but I will list a few that you may not be aware of in addition to the properties that I have not tested for: 1. I have not tested the product for the quantity/intensity relationships with respect to the lowering of the vapor pressure for ammonia. This could be done, but I have not started to put the protocol together. You may want the direct evidence for Ammonia Hold compared with other materials. Think about this after you have considered the following and all attachments. 2. The product contains several elements that have been found important in the nutrition of chicks: a) Vanadium (V) an element found and considered essential for chicks. b) Selenium (Se) an essential element for birds and animals. c) Arsenic (As) an element found beneficial for poultry. d) Cobalt (Co) an element required for production of vitamin B-12. e) Fe, Ca, Mg, P and S are essential for all animals & birds. 3. The CaCO3 in the pellet form could serve to replace the need for oyster shells that we used to use for poultry fed whole grains. (This could be important). 4. While the material is not of reagent quality, it does have desirable properties, and I have made an effort in Table 1 to provide you with a chemical composition for the material. The X-ray diffraction data gives the best evidence that the material is not homogeneous. I am doubtful that the phosphating process changes these properties to any great extent. 5. The results help explain why the food and drug administration found no adverse effects from the material. If you want me to, I will share these results with Dr. Roland Leach. I informed him that someone is working on a research grant for Penn State; he had not heard of the effort, but promised to check with his Department Head. I have not heard anything. Call me at 814-865-1221 or at home 814-238-6617 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dale E. Baker, President Ph.D. Soil Physical Chemistry & Agronomy |
IT'S EFFECT ON TURKEY LITTER |
||
| PERCENT | WITH | WITHOUT |
| SOLIDS | 77.30 | 73.40 |
| NITROGEN | 8.04 | 6.26 |
| CARBON | 34.52 | 29.55 |
| PHOSPHORUS | 1.50 | 1.69 |
| AMMONIA-N | 0.48 | 0.48 |
| NITRATE-N | 2.04 | 1.06 |
| POTASSIUM | 0.685 | 0.687 |
| MAGNESIUM | 0.427 | 0.403 |
| CALCIUM | 2.80 | 2.82 |
| SODIUM | 0.685 | 0.687 |
| IRON | 0.142 | 0.258 |
| C:N RATIO | 4.29 | 4.72 |
THE WITHOUT SAMPLES HAD A LITTLE MORE PHOSPHORUS AND IRON. |
||