Patent Grant
10633299
Field of the Invention
The present invention is broadly concerned with fertilizers for controllably-releasing molybdenum.
Description of the Prior Art
Molybdenum is an essential micronutrient for plant growth. Molybdenum is utilized by two plant enzymes that are responsible for converting nitrates into nitrites, and then nitrites into ammonia. That ammonia is then used by those plants to synthesize amino acids. Molybdenum is also used to convert inorganic phosphorus to organic phosphorus in plants, and legumes specifically need molybdenum to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Molybdenum uptake from the soil by plants is most efficient at higher pHs (>7) and less efficient at lower pH soils (<7). Farmers who have fields or field areas with low pHs and who also have Molybdenum deficiency do not have any tools that singly address these two soil issues when they occur together.
Furthermore, a current, typical agronomic practice for fertilizing a field with molybdenum is to use large-sized frits or granules that are broadcasted across a field at an application rate of 6-12 oz. per acre. This causes widespread distribution that may have many inches or even feet between granules. This varying distribution reduces the probability that the plants will have the ability to have access to the nutrient. No prior art molybdenum fertilizers have solved this problem, therefore making it a dire need to develop a novel fertilizer that can address these concerns.
This present invention is a new molybdenum fertilizer that addresses both of these issues. First, the invention increases molybdenum availability to plants in a controlled manner for longer time periods regardless of soil pH. Second, it uniformly distributes molybdenum throughout the soil.
The present invention addresses these problems by providing a fertilizer composition comprising a mixture of:
The invention further provides a coated fertilizer product comprising a carrier coated with a fertilizer composition. The fertilizer composition comprises a mixture of:
In a further embodiment, the invention provides a molybdenum fertilization method comprising introducing a fertilizer composition into an environment to be fertilized with molybdenum. The fertilizer composition comprises a mixture of:
The invention also provides a method of forming a fertilizer composition comprising blending together ingredients comprising:
In yet a further embodiment, the invention provides a method of forming a coated fertilizer product comprising applying a fertilizer composition to the outer surface of a carrier. The fertilizer composition comprises a mixture of:
The present invention overcomes the problems of the prior art by broadly providing a microscopic buffering system that aids in the time-release and/or uptake of plant available molybdenum.
In more detail, the present invention provides a fertilizer composition comprising:
It is preferred that the at least one calcium source (I) is a relatively insoluble form of calcium. More particularly, it is preferred that the at least one calcium source (I) has a solubility of less than about 2.0 g/L in water, preferably less than about 0.5 g/L in water, more preferably less than about 0.05 g/L in water, and even more preferably from about 0.00001 g/L to about 0.05 g/L, all at 25° C. Particularly preferred sources of calcium for the at least one calcium source (I) are selected from the group consisting of calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, calcium hydroxide calcium hydroxyl apatite, calcium molybdate, and mixtures thereof.
In instances where “another” (i.e., second) source of calcium (designated as (III)(a) above) is present in the fertilizer composition, it is preferred that this other calcium source (III)(a) is relatively soluble. That is, calcium source (III)(a) is more soluble in water (25° C.) than the at least one calcium source (I). It is preferred that the other source of calcium (III)(a) be at least about 50 times more soluble, more preferably at least about 100 times more soluble, and even more preferably at least about 500 times more soluble in water than the at least one calcium source (I). Additionally, it is preferred that the pKa of the calcium source (III)(a) is lower than the pKa of the at least one calcium source (I)—preferably at least 1 pKa unit lower, more preferably at least 2 pKa units lower, and even more preferably at least 3 pKa units lower.
As noted, particularly preferred other calcium sources (III)(a) are relatively soluble in water. That is, it is preferred the other calcium source (III)(a) (when present) has a solubility of at least about 2.5 g/L in water, preferably from about 2.5 g/L to about 50 g/L in water, more preferably from about 5 g/L to about 100 g/L in water, and even more preferably from about 25 g/L to about 1,000 g/L in water, all at 25° C. Preferred such calcium sources (III)(a) are selected from the group consisting of calcium ammonium nitrate, calcium citrate, calcium acetate, calcium malate, calcium nitrate (preferably in tetrahydrate form), calcium chloride, and mixtures thereof.
The determination of whether another calcium source (III)(a) is utilized will depend upon the soil composition. In some instances, the soil composition (e.g., soil containing water-soluble acid salts or water-soluble organic acids) may render the calcium source (III)(a) less necessary for the present invention to function properly. Such components may be native to the soil, added externally before, during, and/or after fertilizer application, or some combination of the foregoing.
It is preferred that the at least one molybdenum source (II) is a relatively soluble (in water at 25° C.) form of molybdenum. Particularly preferred at least one molybdenum source (II) is selected from the group consisting of sodium molybdate (preferably dihydrate), ammonium heptamolybdate, potassium molybdate, ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate, and mixtures thereof.
In instances where another source of molybdenum (III)(b) is included, it can be soluble or insoluble in water at 25° C. However, it is preferred that the at least one source of molybdenum (II) is more soluble than the other molybdenum source (III)(b) in water at 25° C. Particularly preferred second molybdenum sources (III)(b) are selected from the group consisting of molybdenum trioxide, powellite (calcium molybdate), molybdenum dioxide, and mixtures thereof. This novel combination of molybdenum sources, coupled with up to two calcium sources provides the localized buffering effect. This will create an environment in which molybdenum will have an increased uptake over a period of time.
In a further embodiment, the fertilizer composition can include a third source of molybdenum, with this third molybdenum source being different from the molybdenum sources (II) and (III)(b) discussed above. One preferred such third source is ammonium dimolybdate.
A number of other optional ingredients can also be included in the fertilizer composition, if desired. Some of those ingredients include those selected from the group consisting of dispersing agents (e.g., sodium salt of naphthalene sulfonate condensate, zeolite, talc, graphite), anticaking agents, desiccants (e.g., silicon dioxide), dyes, flow agents, micronutrients other than molybdenum, macronutrients other than calcium, and mixtures thereof.
Micronutrients other than molybdenum include those selected from the group consisting of nickel, copper, zinc, manganese, boron, iron, chloride, and selenium. Macronutrients other than calcium include those selected from the group consisting of sulfur, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, and nitrogen. Beneficial nutrients other than sodium include those selected from the group consisting of silicon, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
In one embodiment, the fertilizer composition consists essentially of, or even consists of:
In another embodiment, the fertilizer composition comprises, consists essentially of, or even consists of:
In a further embodiment of the present invention comprises calcium carbonate as the at least one source of calcium (I), sodium molybdate (preferably dihydrate) as the at least one source of molybdenum (II), calcium ammonium nitrate as the other calcium source (III)(a), and molybdenum trioxide as the second molybdenum source (III)(b), with or without the optional ingredients described above. In yet a further embodiment consists essentially of, or even consists of, calcium carbonate as the at least one source of calcium (I), sodium molybdate (preferably dihydrate) as the at least one source of molybdenum (II), calcium ammonium nitrate as the other calcium source (III)(a), and molybdenum trioxide as the second molybdenum source (III)(b), with or without the optional ingredients described above.
In one embodiment, the fertilizer composition is essentially free of micronutrients and macronutrients other than molybdenum, calcium, and nitrogen. In this such embodiment, the fertilizer composition comprises less than about 3% by weight, preferably less than about 1% by weight, more preferably less than about 0.1% by weight, and preferably about 0% by weight micronutrients and macronutrients other than calcium and molybdenum, based upon the total weight of the fertilizer composition taken as 100% by weight.
The preferred ranges of various ingredients are set forth in Table 1.
Advantageously, each ingredient utilized to form the fertilizer composition is provided in a fine powder form. The average particle size of each ingredient powder utilized should be less than about 170 μm, preferably from about 25 μm to about 170 μm, more preferably from about 50 μm to about 160 μm, and even more preferably from about 50 μm to about 100 μm. In one embodiment, at least about 50%, preferably at least about 70%, more preferably at least about 85%, even more preferably at least about 95%, and most preferably about 100% of the particles in the fertilizer composition will have a particle size in this range. Importantly, the molybdenum sources also have this small particle size, which is much smaller than the traditional molybdenum sources used with prior art methods.
Furthermore, the ingredients can be provided in various combination of hydrated, dry, and mixtures thereof. In a preferred embodiment, the ingredients have individual moisture contents of less than about 3% by weight, preferably less than about 1% by weight, more preferably less than about 0.1% by weight, and preferably about 0% by weight, based upon the total weight of the particular ingredient utilized taken as 100% by weight.
In another preferred embodiment, no liquids (e.g., water, solvents, oils) are included in the fertilizer composition. That is, the levels of liquids in the fertilizer compositions are less than about 3% by weight, preferably less than about 1% by weight, more preferably less than about 0.1% by weight, and preferably about 0% by weight, based upon the total weight of the fertilizer composition taken as 100% by weight.
The inventive compositions are formed by first reducing the particle size of any ingredients that do not already have the above-noted particle size ranges. This can be accomplished by conventional particle size reduction methods and equipment (e.g., milling). Particle size is reduced until the material resembles a fine powder. Additionally, the particle size is determined by conventional methods, including by simply passing the particles through an analytical sieve to screen out particles having an undesirable size.
Once each of the ingredients has its desired particle size and appearance, the ingredients are then blended together until a substantially uniform mixture is achieved (typically from about 5 to about 10 minutes of mixing). Preferably, this is accomplished via dry blending. That is, it is preferred that no liquid (e.g., water, oils, solvents) be added during or after the blending, so that the formed fertilizer composition is a dry mixture. The formed composition preferably has a moisture content of less than about 3% by weight, preferably less than about 1% by weight, more preferably less than about 0.1% by weight, and preferably about 0% by weight, based upon the total weight of the fertilizer composition taken as 100% by weight. Some conventional equipment may allow for simultaneous particle size reduction and blending in a one step process. In such cases, special care should be taken to note particle sizes post-blending; larger material volumes may reduce particle size transfer efficiency.
Although the above-described fertilizer compositions can be utilized alone (i.e., in powder form), in a preferred embodiment they are used in conjunction with a carrier. That is, the fertilizer composition is preferably coated onto a carrier so that it coats at least some of the outer surface of that carrier. This coating can be accomplished by simply mixing the fertilizer composition with the carrier until a substantially uniform coating has been achieved (typically from about 1 minute to about 5 minutes).
Preferred carriers are agronomic carriers, with examples including those selected from the group consisting of seeds, conventional fertilizer products (e.g., nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, sulfur, calcium and/or magnesium fertilizer products), urea prills, dry or granular fertilizer products, inert pellets, biodegradable pellets, and suspensions (both aqueous and non-aqueous).
In instances where the carrier is a seed, that seed can be inoculated, or inoculation of the seed can be avoided entirely. In one embodiment, it is preferred that the seed is not inoculated with Rhizobium. In another embodiment, the seed is not inoculated at all.
In instances where the carrier is other than a seed and the invention is used to provide molybdenum to soil where seeds are to be planted, those seeds to be planted can also be inoculated or non-inoculated. However, in one such embodiment, it is preferred that the seed is not inoculated with Rhizobium. In another embodiment, it is preferred that the seed is not inoculated at all.
In one embodiment, the carrier is one having a relatively small particle size. In these instances, the largest average surface-to-surface dimension of the carrier is from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm, preferably from about 0.5 mm to about 1 mm, and more preferably from about 2 mm to about 5 mm.
The fertilizer composition is preferably coated onto the carrier at sufficient levels that the final coated fertilizer product includes the powdered fertilizer composition at levels of from about 0.1% by weight to about 10% by weight, preferably from about 0.25% by weight to about 2% by weight, and more preferably from about 0.5% by weight to about 1.5% by weight, based upon the total weight of the coated fertilizer product taken as 100% by weight. In a preferred embodiment, the balance of that weight is entirely attributable to the carrier. In other words, there are no other layers or coatings (e.g., no acidifying agents) above or below the fertilizer composition coating so that the coated fertilizer product consists essentially of, or even consists of, the carrier and inventive fertilizer composition coated on the carrier.
Preferably, the carrier is a dry carrier so that the fertilizer composition coats the dry outer carrier surface. Unless a liquid suspension is used as carrier, no liquid (e.g., solvent, water, oil) should be added during or after the blending of the carrier and fertilizer composition (i.e., it's a “dry-on-dry” blending). As a result, the moisture content of the fertilizer composition coating does not increase from its starting moisture content during this process and certainly falls within the moisture content ranges set forth above.
Advantageously, the inventive fertilizer compositions have good transfer efficiencies. As used herein, “transfer efficiency” is determined as set forth in Example 2. That is, at an addition rate of from about 1% to about 10%, the transfer efficiency of the inventive fertilizer compositions is at least about 80%, and preferably at least about 85%. At addition rates of from about 1% to about 5%, the transfer efficiency is at least about 85%, and preferably at least about 90%.
Furthermore, the inventive compositions have a good shelf life (determined as set forth in Example 4). That is, the compositions exhibit little to no caking after spending as much as 10, 20, or even 25 hours in even 100% humid conditions.
As noted previously, the above-described fertilizer compositions can be utilized alone in their blended powder form, but more preferably they are coated onto a carrier and utilized as a coated or suspended fertilizer product. Regardless of the method involved for introducing the fertilizer composition into an environment, the introduction typically involves contacting the product with soil and/or water. The unique combination and particle size of the ingredients in the present invention will generate “microscopic bursts” of pH changes (>7) upon contact with the soil or water. This microscopic buffered environment will have dissolved molybdenum, thereby ultimately increasing the availability of the molybdenum to the plant. For example,
It will be appreciated that the present invention offers a number of advantages not present in the prior art. For example, the present invention allows molybdenum to be “metered out” at the low rates that plants require and in a pattern with spatial frequency that maximizes the probability that individual crop plant roots will encounter molybdenum. That is, the carrier can be used as a “vector” to more evenly spread the molybdenum throughout a field. Importantly, the present invention counteracts the acidity zones created around fertilizer granules by creating localized buffers at the source of uptake, thus ensuring the plants contact molybdenum in a usable form and that such contact takes place over the course of weeks.
Although this invention finds use with any crop needing molybdenum supplementation, it is particularly beneficial for use with crops selected from the group consisting of nitrogen fixing crops, as well as broccoli, Brussel sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, lettuce, spinach, sugarbeets, tomatoes, and tobacco.
Additional advantages of the various embodiments of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art upon review of the disclosure herein and the working examples below. It will be appreciated that the various embodiments described herein are not necessarily mutually exclusive unless otherwise indicated herein. For example, a feature described or depicted in one embodiment may also be included in other embodiments, but is not necessarily included. Thus, the present invention encompasses a variety of combinations and/or integrations of the specific embodiments described herein.
As used herein, the phrase “and/or,” when used in a list of two or more items, means that any one of the listed items can be employed by itself or any combination of two or more of the listed items can be employed. For example, if a composition is described as containing or excluding components A, B, and/or C, the composition can contain or exclude A alone; B alone; C alone; A and B in combination; A and C in combination; B and C in combination; or A, B, and C in combination.
The present description also uses numerical ranges to quantify certain parameters relating to various embodiments of the invention. It should be understood that when numerical ranges are provided, such ranges are to be construed as providing literal support for claim limitations that only recite the lower value of the range as well as claim limitations that only recite the upper value of the range. For example, a disclosed numerical range of about 10 to about 100 provides literal support for a claim reciting “greater than about 10” (with no upper bounds) and a claim reciting “less than about 100” (with no lower bounds).
The following examples set forth preferred methods in accordance with the invention. It is to be understood, however, that these examples are provided by way of illustration and nothing therein should be taken as a limitation upon the overall scope of the invention.
A formulation was prepared using the ingredients and quantities shown in Table 2. Each ingredient was ground by a coffee grinder to a particle size of about 149 μm (100 mesh) or smaller. Each individually ground ingredient was mixed after grounding to ensure representative sampling. Under ambient conditions, all raw ingredients were combined together using a mixer (from Kitchen Aid) to ensure uniform mixing, after which the product was packaged and sealed.
Fine powder fertilizers are often difficult to spread across a field in a uniform manner, and thus require a carrier to achieve better dispersion. This requires a powder product to adhere quite easily to the selected carrier, which is generally some combination of N, P, K fertilizers. The powder product prepared in Example 1 was subjected to retention testing to determine its ability to coat a carrier (urea, in this instance) and remain on that carrier.
“Retention test” as used herein is defined as the procedure described in this Example 2. First, urea (sold under the name 46-0-0 Urea, by Farmers Union Coop.) was sieved to a particle size of from about 2 mm (US mesh 10) to about 4.76 mm (US mesh 4). About 100 g of the sieved urea and about 0.1 g of the Example 1 sample were placed in a clear polyethylene screw-cap container (e.g., U-line containers from Grainger), with the exact weight of each being recorded. The container was capped and sealed, followed by gentle rolling end-over-end for 2 minutes. The container was then uncapped, and its contents were poured onto a US mesh 14 (1.41 mm), followed by gentle shaking for 30 seconds. A Chemwipe was used to remove any clinging powder from the sides of the polyethylene container. Powder retained on the US mesh 14 sieve was placed back into the same polyethylene container, and the exact weight was determined. This test was repeated several times as described above, except changing the Example 1 powder sample quantities with each repetition as follows: 0.25 g, 0.5 g, 1.0 g, 2.0 g, 5.0 g, 10 g, 25 g, and 40 g. (Using larger quantities of the powder sample may require multiple sieve steps to remove all non-coated sample.)
Retention test results will indicate transfer efficiency and adhesion rate. Transfer efficiency is the ratio of a dry powder fertilizer that sticks to a carrier versus the total amount of the fertilizer added. Many carrier coating processes involve a recycle loop that takes any uncoated portion of the carrier and recirculates it through the system for an additional round of carrier coating. The transfer efficiency measures how well the product adhered to the carrier in one single pass. Adhesion rate is the ratio of the product that sticks to the carrier versus the total amount of the product present. This allows for the maximum possible adhesion to be estimated upon an infinite number of passes through the carrier recycle loop system.
The results of this Example 2 illustrated remarkable transfer efficiency as well as an extraordinarily high adhesion rate for a dry powder fertilizer.
The transfer efficiency of the formulation from Example 1 did not drop below 84.5% until the addition rate (Product Added:Urea Added) climbed higher than 10%. For reference, at only a 1% addition rate the transfer efficiency for ammonium dimolybdate and sodium molybdate dihydrate were 0.4% and 19.6% respectively. The adhesion rate of the formulation from Example 1 showed that maximum adhesion peaks at about 15%. This was dramatically higher than either of the two competitors, which peaked at <0.1% and at about 1.0% for ammonium dimolybdate and sodium molybdate dehydrate respectively.
Local pH monitoring can be difficult to analyze because it will happen at the microscopic level. It is suspected that the low pKa calcium source will etch the calcium carbonate to form a weak base buffer. The weak base will then be overcome by the soil and only provide short, local microscopic bursts of pH giving enough time for molybdenum uptake. This Example 3 illustrates the pH change that occurs on a macro-scale confirming that the microscopic pH change occurs. This example observes the bulk change in pH to a neutral water solution via the addition of the powder product prepared in Example 1. This example describes how a pH analysis as used herein should be carried out. In this procedure, 25 g of the powder prepared in Example 1 was measured into a clean 600-mL glass beaker. Next, 300 g of 18.2 MΩ pure DI water and a clean stir bar were placed into the beaker. The beaker was sealed and stirred continuously for 1 week and the pH was monitored at pre-determined time intervals. Table 4 sets forth these results:
The results revealed a slow increase of pH over time. The increase of pH showed that the novel combination of ingredients in Example 1 generated a pH buffered solution over time.
When most fine powders absorb moisture that is subsequently removed in dry climates, a recrystallization occurs and leads to product caking. This will impede product adhesion to a carrier, as well as its “flowability.” In this Example 4, accelerated shelf life studies were performed by subjecting the powder product prepared in Example 1 to 100% humid conditions for set periods of time. The moisture of the product was then baked off to monitor whether or not the product was prone to caking.
Shelf life of a sample, as used herein, is determined as described in this example.
The shelf life stability results are shown in Table 5 and
This Example 5 performed a comparative study between the powder product prepared in Example 1, two common soluble molybdenum sources (ammonium dimolybdate and sodium molybdate dihydrate), and a macronutrient control. The control served as a basis for comparison between the powder product of Example 1 and the two other molybdenum sources. Observed differences in plant tissue biomass, nitrogen uptake efficiency, and soluble molybdenum uptake efficiency were documented as follows.
In this procedure, an aqueous solution of ammonium dimolybdate, an aqueous solution of sodium molybdate dihydrate, and an aqueous suspension of the Example 1 formulation were added to separate pots containing growth medium (50:50 peat moss/vermiculite at pH 5.5). These three test samples were added at levels of 40 ppb molybdenum.
Next, 4 wheat grass seeds were placed in each pot, with 3 replicate pots for each molybdenum source at each concentration noted above. Macronutrient fertilizer (specifically Urea, obtained from Brenntag, monoammonium phosphate, obtained from Agri-Feed Products, sulfate of potash 171X, obtained from Compass Minerals at ratios of 2:1:1) was added to each of these pots at a level of 220 ppm (Urea concentration), as well as to three additional pots that had no molybdenum added (i.e., only the macronutrient fertilizer) as a control from comparison.
After six weeks of watering, all replicate heights were measured and recorded. Then the tissue was removed, dried, and grinded. The biomass for the plant tissue in each pot was recorded. Each plant tissue sample from the pots was tested for nitrogen update efficiency, and molybdenum uptake efficiency by a third party laboratory (Agvise Laboratories).
The results found in this example illustrate the remarkable performance of the powder product prepared in Example 1. At 40 ppb molybdenum concentration added to each pot, the wheat grass biomass was 22% larger in the pots containing the powder product of Example 1 when compared to the macronutrient control. This result returned a significantly larger biomass than all other monitored cases in this study. The soluble molybdenum uptake efficiency revealed a very similar result, with 64.1% of all soluble molybdenum added being taken up into the plant. This was significantly larger than both molybdenum competitors, and nearly a 40% improvement to sodium molybdate dihydrate, which had the second highest efficiency in the study at this concentration. Nitrogen uptake efficiency was also highest in the pots containing the powder product prepared in Example 1, at the 46% increase from the macronutrient control. This result was much higher than the increases observed for ammonium dimolybdate and sodium molybdate dihydrate at 30% and 8% respectively. The combined results from all three categories showed that the dry power product prepared in Example 1 delivered molybdenum with a significantly higher efficiency, leading to larger nitrogen uptake efficiencies, and a significantly larger wheat grass biomass.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3794478 | Dirksen | Feb 1974 | A |
| 4007029 | Kenton | Feb 1977 | A |
| 4299613 | Cardarelli | Nov 1981 | A |
| 4319910 | Meyer | Mar 1982 | A |
| 4400374 | Cardarelli | Aug 1983 | A |
| 4405360 | Cardarelli | Sep 1983 | A |
| 6383247 | Wiechens | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6841515 | Burnham | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 7410522 | Green | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7445657 | Green | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 8221515 | Goodwin | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 9133065 | Goodwin et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
| 9199883 | Peacock et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9321699 | Peacock et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9499450 | McIlrath | Nov 2016 | B2 |
| 9540291 | Wheeler et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
| 20020098982 | Burnham | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20050064001 | Wiesman et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050115290 | Sanders et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050138979 | Minaev | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20080051526 | Yahkind et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080271368 | Yamada | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20110224080 | Lelas | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110269627 | Lelas | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20130219979 | Deb | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20140102156 | Pursell et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20160083308 | Peacock et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20170066692 | Ledoux | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170096377 | Immelman et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170113978 | Wheeler et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20180162781 | Iyer | Jun 2018 | A1 |
| 20190127286 | Tyree | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190161418 | Meredith | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190308916 | Zhang | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1257854 | Jun 2000 | CN |
| 1257855 | Jun 2000 | CN |
| 100463882 | Feb 2009 | CN |
| 2015132261 | Sep 2015 | WO |
| 2015145221 | Oct 2015 | WO |
| 2016130695 | Aug 2016 | WO |
| 2016141486 | Sep 2016 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Padhi et al., “Effect of Lime Coating and Molybdenum Seed Treatment on Nodulation, Growth and Yield of Different Pulses Grown in Alfisols,” Int. J. Curr. Microbicl. App. Sci. (2018) 7(2): 1417-1426. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 26, 2019 in corresponding PCT/US2018/030926 filed May 3, 2018, 11 pages. |
| Machine Translation of CN100463882, 9 pages. |
| Machine Translation of CN1257855, 9 pages. |
| Machine Translation of CN1257854, 9 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20190322602 A1 | Oct 2019 | US |
