Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Bound Suspended
Contaminants Contaminants
1000 nanometers
(1 micron) in
diameter
Water
Sub-Clusters
Macro
Particle
Standard Particle Size in Liquid Fertilizer
Wide range with Average of 5 Microns (5000 nanometers)
Nano Particles
Pen # Treatment Per bird Avg Daily Feed efficiency Death loss Condemns Notes
weight Gain
1 No Hydrozome 5.94 .1320 1.814 15% 2
Medicated feed
Notes:
• Pens 3 & 4 grew much quicker, while pen 2 started slower and came on faster at the end.
• Pens 3 & 4 could harvest at least 1 week earlier, giving the grower an extra cycle per year
• Strength of the birds with Hydrozome much greater even with the rapid weight gain
Control Group Pen 1
Chicken Analysis
We did independent analysis of the organs
from the birds, from each pen to look for any
abnormalities or nutrient accumulation in
the organs that would indicate health
problems.
Samples taken post-winter before any Spring fertilizer applied. Last fertilization Oct 2012
Forage Test Results
Sample of Grass Tissue 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
4/19/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Dry Matter % as Received (Oven) 88.35% 89.31% 1.08%
This study estimated the non-established area of each field. The type of establishment was visibly different between the two fields. The less
established areas on the Standard Field contained multiple large bare patches. The less-established areas on the Nano Field, which was
planted 7 days later, contained almost no bare patches. This suggests more complete germination occurred using the Nano Fertilzer.
Macro and Micro Nutrient – Final Test Results
Sample of Grass Tissue 40 gal 20 gal % Difference
6/10/2013 Standard Fertilizer Nano Fertilizer
Nitrogen, %N 3.14% 3.64% 15.92%