For decades, agriculture has focused on timing—controlling when nutrients are released to crops. Slow-Release Fertilizers (SRFs) and Controlled-Release Fertilizers (CRFs) were introduced to extend nutrient availability over time.
But timing alone doesn’t solve nutrient loss—retention matters just as much.
That’s why Stabilized Inputs are a step above traditional fertilizers, micronutrients, biostimulants, and soil amendments, designed to keep nutrients and other inputs in place longer—without synthetic coatings, microplastics, or forever chemicals.
Unlike SRFs and CRFs, Stabilized Inputs improve efficiency across multiple input types without increasing costs, requiring special application methods, or dictating a fixed release schedule. Instead, they provide a cost-effective, adaptable solution that enhances efficiency without added complexity.
SRFs and CRFs are marketed as efficiency solutions, but research shows they come with major cost and environmental tradeoffs.
CRFs rely on advanced coatings to control the release of nutrients over weeks or months, But these coatings drive up costs:
What This Means for Farmers: CRFs might make sense for small, controlled environments, but they are not a cost-effective solution for large-scale farming.
Unlike CRFs, SRFs rely on environmental factors like soil moisture, temperature, and microbial activity to release nutrients gradually. But studies show that this process is highly unpredictable:
The Bottom Line: SRFs may reduce application frequency, but they don’t prevent nutrient loss—meaning farmers still face inefficiencies, waste, and additional costs over time.
CRFs use polymer coatings to regulate nutrient release, but these coatings don’t always degrade properly.
For growers looking to increase efficiency while avoiding microplastics, CRFs may not be the best long-term option.
Rather than focusing only on release timing, Stabilized Inputs prevent input loss across multiple categories—fertilizers, micronutrients, biostimulants, and soil amendments.
How Stabilized Inputs Work:
Stabilized Inputs Go Beyond Fertilizers:
One of the biggest advantages of Stabilized Inputs is cost-effectiveness.
| Cost Factor | Traditional Inputs | Slow-Release Fertilizers (SRFs) | Controlled-Release Fertilizers (CRFs) | Stabilized Inputs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upfront Cost | Lowest | Moderate | High | Comparable to standard fertilizers |
| Application Frequency | Frequent | Reduced | Least frequent | Standard application schedule |
| Loss Reduction Efficiency | Low | Moderate | High | High (Seminole Water Atlas) |
| Long-Term ROI | Low due to frequent loss | Moderate due to delayed release | High but costly | High due to improved retention |
Why Stabilized Inputs Win on Cost:
Stabilized Inputs maximize efficiency without the high costs of CRFs or the inconsistencies of SRFs.
For decades, the industry has focused on controlling when nutrients become available—but that’s only half the equation.
That’s why Stabilized Inputs are different.
For farmers, agronomists, and input suppliers, this means:
If you want more from every input you apply, Stabilized Inputs offer a simple, cost-effective way to make it happen.