PDA

View Full Version : pet safe weed control


josh3338
01-30-2008, 07:22 PM
i have a cust who asked me today about what she can put in beds to kill bermuda grass. guess dog is allergic she said. but she does not want to use round up. any ideas of something safe???? surely someone else has ran into this. thanks

NattyLawn
01-30-2008, 07:38 PM
i have a cust who asked me today about what she can put in beds to kill bermuda grass. guess dog is allergic she said. but she does not want to use round up. any ideas of something safe???? surely someone else has ran into this. thanks

Nothing is completely safe, but there are organic versions of Round Up available. Try BurnOut II or Everything Must Go.

rcreech
01-30-2008, 08:06 PM
Nothing is completely safe, but there are organic versions of Round Up available. Try BurnOut II or Everything Must Go.

Spray Roundup and tell it is sugar water!

She/or the dog will never know the difference! Gly is a very safe product especially when mixed down to a 2% solution.

If her dog still has "allergies"....just tell her it must be alergic to sugar also! :laugh:

Whitey4
01-30-2008, 08:11 PM
Roundup is really quite safe.... I'm with Rodney. Just keep the dog in until the gly is dry. How the heck would she know if the dog is allergic? If she is that worried about it, put up some chicken wire to keep the dog out of the beds... which it shouldn't be messing with anyway.

Barefoot James
01-30-2008, 09:25 PM
Ask this question in the organic side - try vinegar or a blend of vinegar and citrus acid or best use a small propane torch and burn it out - it may take several app's but this just means more money for you make sure she is aware it may take 5 or more times to get rid of the pest (Bermuda is the toughest of all pests)- who knows what the dog is allergic to but synthetic chemicals like roundup can for many folks/pets be very lethal even at 2%. My cousin has very severe autism and the doctors have positively linked it to lawn herbicides. I mayself have had reactions from applications - this is why I stopped using them.

Facts -

#1 - Organic lawn care doesn’t use toxic lawn chemicals, which make one in seven adults ill, and have shown to lead to a plethora of cancers, developmental disorders and health-related issues in children.
#2 – Organic lawn care utilizes natural substances that are not harmful to animals. Synthetic lawn care chemicals have long been linked to reductions in bird populations and beneficial insects such as bees, which pollinate our food crops. Purdue University and others have linked lawn chemicals to cancers in cats and dogs.
#3 – In organic lawn care, toxic pest controls are rarely necessary. The EPA estimates only 35% of synthetic fertilizers we apply ever make it to the grass – 65% runs into our ground water, lakes, streams, or volatizes into the air we breathe. Even worse, only 2% of weed killers, insecticides and fungicides treat the pest, so 98% of these poisons go somewhere else; into our bodies, our pets, into the air, or into the ground water.

rcreech
01-30-2008, 09:29 PM
Ask this question in the organic side - try vinegar or a blend of vinegar and citrus acid or best use a small propane torch and burn it out - it may take several app's but this just means more money for you make sure she is aware it may take 5 or more times to get rid of the pest (Bermuda is the toughest of all pests)- who knows what the dog is allergic to but synthetic chemicals like roundup can for many folks/pets be very lethal even at 2%. My cousin has very severe autism and the doctors have positively linked it to lawn herbicides. I mayself have had reactions from applications - this is why I stopped using them.

Facts -

#1 - Organic lawn care doesn’t use toxic lawn chemicals, which make one in seven adults ill, and have shown to lead to a plethora of cancers, developmental disorders and health-related issues in children.
#2 – Organic lawn care utilizes natural substances that are not harmful to animals. Synthetic lawn care chemicals have long been linked to reductions in bird populations and beneficial insects such as bees, which pollinate our food crops. Purdue University and others have linked lawn chemicals to cancers in cats and dogs.
#3 – In organic lawn care, toxic pest controls are rarely necessary. The EPA estimates only 35% of synthetic fertilizers we apply ever make it to the grass – 65% runs into our ground water, lakes, streams, or volatizes into the air we breathe. Even worse, only 2% of weed killers, insecticides and fungicides treat the pest, so 98% of these poisons go somewhere else; into our bodies, our pets, into the air, or into the ground water.

Barefoot James,

Compare the LD50 of Roundup vs. Vinegar.

You will quickly see that Roundup is by far a safer product then vinegar.

Roundup is one of the safest products on the market! You still have to respect it...but it is far from "lethal" other then to weeds!

Whitey4
01-30-2008, 09:35 PM
LD50 of nicotine, an organic pesticide is 4! One of the most lethal pesticides in the world!

When the EPA tests the organics the way they have tested what we use... talk to me. There is a LOT of research yet to be done on organics. And yes, people over apply this stuff. That is the problem, not the materials.

FdLLawnMan
01-30-2008, 10:00 PM
#1 - Organic lawn care doesn’t use toxic lawn chemicals, which make one in seven adults ill, and have shown to lead to a plethora of cancers, developmental disorders and health-related issues in children.
#2 – Organic lawn care utilizes natural substances that are not harmful to animals. Synthetic lawn care chemicals have long been linked to reductions in bird populations and beneficial insects such as bees, which pollinate our food crops. Purdue University and others have linked lawn chemicals to cancers in cats and dogs.
#3 – In organic lawn care, toxic pest controls are rarely necessary. The EPA estimates only 35% of synthetic fertilizers we apply ever make it to the grass – 65% runs into our ground water, lakes, streams, or volatizes into the air we breathe. Even worse, only 2% of weed killers, insecticides and fungicides treat the pest, so 98% of these poisons go somewhere else; into our bodies, our pets, into the air, or into the ground water.

I don't want to start a huge argument here but I believe you are pretty loose with your statements.
One in seven adults gets sick from herbicides. Show me the results of those tests. The EPA just completed a 21 year study that showed no link whatsoever between 2,4-d and cancer. Where are you getting your information.
In the worst case when using straight urea with no slow release up to 15% leaches out, not 65%. Most of us use a pretty good slow release in which we have virtually no leaching of fertilizer.
98% of the herbicides are not used by the plant. Where do you get that information. 99% of what I am spraying on the lawn is water. When you look at the amount of active ingredient in the mix versus water there is no way that 98% is released off site. In fact, studies performed by leading universities show that less than 1% of the fertilizers and herbicides applied to a site move off that site.
I hope you don't use these facts when talking to new customers.

These type of statements really get me irritated. They have no basis in fact, but are used to scare people into thinking synthetic bad, will kill, organic good.

Barefoot James
01-30-2008, 11:17 PM
These type of statements really get me irritated. They have no basis in fact, but are used to scare people into thinking synthetic bad, will kill, organic good.
__________________
Mike I
Mike's Total Lawn Care

Mike - the most prolific (which means bears great fruit) forests (old growth, rain, etc) in the world - Question - who fertilizes those? Just God! Heck they can't even grow some of the stuff in these forests because they don't even know what it needs.
Granted when you use nitrates they work they really work. Tons of growth - sometimes out of control growth (let me say it again UNBELIEVABLE GROWTH) but after awhile the organic material goes dead. the soil locks up due to salts lack of beneficial microbes and this area has to be treated with more and more synthetics (and water) - like drugs - it takes more and more to get the same results. These are proven facts. Why do you see places like FL doing what they are doing (watch what happens on 2009 when all the scientific results are compiled for the Washington DC project on the national lawn). Synthetics started up in WW1 - the Germans - well like any good thing (on the surface) is winding down and I would encourage you do like I'm doing and be a little more open minded towards how to go Green. It will be tougher and tougher to make a living with synthetics. Look around what do you see? People like me with medical problems why....? Until it happens to you or someone you love it just does not make sense and I understand but there are other alternatives.
There's allot more than 2,4-d going on with synthetics - that's just one of thousands of poisons applied to yards. Would you drink it? Even 2,4-d has a LD50 rating and I bet 100% 2,4-d concentration would be a very little amount to... you. I'm sure compost tea also has a LD50 rating but you would have to drink a ton of tea and you would get sick before you could ever .... Scary stuff, those synthetics!
By the way my business commitment is to tell everyone I come in contact with the truth - I'm 1 of the seven!

Whitey4
01-30-2008, 11:35 PM
These type of statements really get me irritated. They have no basis in fact, but are used to scare people into thinking synthetic bad, will kill, organic good.
__________________
Mike I
Mike's Total Lawn Care

Mike - the most prolific (which means bears great fruit) forests (old growth, rain, etc) in the world - Question - who fertilizes those? Just God! Heck they can't even grow some of the stuff in these forests because they don't even know what it needs.
Granted when you use nitrates they work they really work. Tons of growth - sometimes out of control growth (let me say it again UNBELIEVABLE GROWTH) but after awhile the organic material goes dead. the soil locks up due to salts lack of beneficial microbes and this area has to be treated with more and more synthetics (and water) - like drugs - it takes more and more to get the same results. These are proven facts. Why do you see places like FL doing what they are doing (watch what happens on 2009 when all the scientific results are compiled for the Washington DC project on the national lawn). Synthetics started up in WW1 - the Germans - well like any good thing (on the surface) is winding down and I would encourage you do like I'm doing and be a little more open minded towards how to go Green. It will be tougher and tougher to make a living with synthetics. Look around what do you see? People like me with medical problems why....? Until it happens to you or someone you love it just does not make sense and I understand but there are other alternatives.
There's allot more than 2,4-d going on with synthetics - that's just one of thousands of poisons applied to yards. Would you drink it? Even 2,4-d has a LD50 rating and I bet 100% 2,4-d concentration would be a very little amount to... you. I'm sure compost tea also has a LD50 rating but you would have to drink a ton of tea and you would get sick before you could ever .... Scary stuff, those synthetics!
By the way my business commitment is to tell everyone I come in contact with the truth - I'm 1 of the seven!

What in the flyin farts are you babbling about? Compost tea? What's IN it? Put some organic nicotine in it, and yeah, a couple drops could KILL you! Or maybe some arsenic.... or maybe the knucklhead who made the tea threw some poison ivy in it too! The problem with you organic maniacs is that you are throwing stuff down thinking it's all fine and dandy, and for all you know (or don't know) it could be freakin deadly! It hasn't been tested, nor are there any standards set for it! But throw that word "organic" in front of it and it MUST be safe! Clueless babbling....

FdLLawnMan
01-30-2008, 11:37 PM
Barefoot

2,4-d has an LD rating. It is approximately the same as salt and aspirin. I am sure you ingest those on occasion. As far as the synthetic fertilizers killing the microbes in the soil. I would like to see the facts on that as I am sure that my lawn has plenty of microbes in it. If not, then I would assume that if I took the fertilizer away my lawn would die as there would be no microbes in the soil to break down the organic matter in the soil into nitrogen. By going one year without fertilizer the lawn will thin causing more runoff and possible erosion. Yes, synthetic fertilizers cause growth, is that bad, I certainly don't think so. You may think that synthetics are scary, but I don't. I base my perceptions on facts and studies. If this stuff was as bad as you say we would have no applicators left as they would all be dead. I am sorry you have a medical problem, but there are many things that cause medical problems.
Barefoot, you and I are not going to agree on this. If you want to use organic lawn care, more power to you. By the way, I live within 30 m miles of Lake Michigan. One of the biggest problems they have is cow manure filtering into the lake. That's organic.

NattyLawn
01-30-2008, 11:54 PM
What in the flyin farts are you babbling about? Compost tea? What's IN it? Put some organic nicotine in it, and yeah, a couple drops could KILL you! Or maybe some arsenic.... or maybe the knucklhead who made the tea threw some poison ivy in it too! The problem with you organic maniacs is that you are throwing stuff down thinking it's all fine and dandy, and for all you know (or don't know) it could be freakin deadly! It hasn't been tested, nor are there any standards set for it! But throw that word "organic" in front of it and it MUST be safe! Clueless babbling....

I can guarantee that no organic lawn care company is using nicotine as an herbicide!

Nothing you put down is 100% safe! Organic, "safe" or synthetic.

Whitey4
01-31-2008, 12:00 AM
I can guarantee that no organic lawn care company is using nicotine as an herbicide!

Nothing you put down is 100% safe! Organic, "safe" or synthetic.

Obviously.... I said that to make a point. Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's safe. BTW, there ARE some formulations that DO include nicotine... but I'm guessing you knew that... or maybe not.

NattyLawn
01-31-2008, 12:02 AM
Barefoot

2,4-d has an LD rating. It is approximately the same as salt and aspirin. I am sure you ingest those on occasion. As far as the synthetic fertilizers killing the microbes in the soil. I would like to see the facts on that as I am sure that my lawn has plenty of microbes in it. If not, then I would assume that if I took the fertilizer away my lawn would die as there would be no microbes in the soil to break down the organic matter in the soil into nitrogen. By going one year without fertilizer the lawn will thin causing more runoff and possible erosion. Yes, synthetic fertilizers cause growth, is that bad, I certainly don't think so. You may think that synthetics are scary, but I don't. I base my perceptions on facts and studies. If this stuff was as bad as you say we would have no applicators left as they would all be dead. I am sorry you have a medical problem, but there are many things that cause medical problems.
Barefoot, you and I are not going to agree on this. If you want to use organic lawn care, more power to you. By the way, I live within 30 m miles of Lake Michigan. One of the biggest problems they have is cow manure filtering into the lake. That's organic.

How long have you been applying synthetic fert to your lawn? If you have been applying chem ferts you have very little microbial activity. Chem ferts have high salt content. The salts act like "salt on slug" and kills the microbes. Do you aerate your lawn every year? Ever wonder why that's such a common practice? Another thing, chem ferts have water soluble N. It doesn't require microbial activty for breakdown, it requires water. If you want to get a bio-assay of your soil vs. organic soil, let me know.

NattyLawn
01-31-2008, 12:03 AM
Obviously.... I said that to make a point. Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's safe. BTW, there ARE some formulations that DO include nicotine... but I'm guessing you knew that... or maybe not.

Like Merit?

I'm glad you're mr knowledgable. Do you even have a license?

Whitey4
01-31-2008, 12:17 AM
Like Merit?

I'm glad you're mr knowledgable. Do you even have a license?

It isn't called a license, it's called being certified. Unless you were asking about my business license? Or if my company is a NYS registered pesticide company? Yes, I am certified. And no, I am not Mr Knowledgable. So, if Merit uses nicotine, is it organic? Got any more friendly questions?

There is room in the wolrd for both organics and synthetics. Is this like some organic nazi PETA type crashing of this forum?

FdLLawnMan
01-31-2008, 12:24 AM
How long have you been applying synthetic fert to your lawn? If you have been applying chem ferts you have very little microbial activity. Chem ferts have high salt content. The salts act like "salt on slug" and kills the microbes. Do you aerate your lawn every year? Ever wonder why that's such a common practice? Another thing, chem ferts have water soluble N. It doesn't require microbial activty for breakdown, it requires water. If you want to get a bio-assay of your soil vs. organic soil, let me know.

I fertilized my lawn for 5 years and then quit. After 5 years I started again. I have now been fertilizing it for the past four years. My lawn did not die and no lawn has ever died after being taken off synthetic fertilizer. What they do is get thinner and will not get thicker again until additional nitrogen is added again, whether it be organic or synthetic. We have measured salt levels in the soil and they are perfectly acceptable. To say that I have no microbial activity in the soil is just not true. The organic matter is being broken down. I just had a soil test done on a lawn that has had fertilizer applied to it for over 5 years. The level of organic matter in the soil was 5%. Why does it irritate you organic guys so much that we use synthetic fertilizers. If you want to use organics go ahead. It's as if your not happy unless your beating us down for what we do.

rcreech
01-31-2008, 07:02 AM
These type of statements really get me irritated. They have no basis in fact, but are used to scare people into thinking synthetic bad, will kill, organic good.
__________________
Mike I
Mike's Total Lawn Care

Mike - the most prolific (which means bears great fruit) forests (old growth, rain, etc) in the world - Question - who fertilizes those? Just God! Heck they can't even grow some of the stuff in these forests because they don't even know what it needs.
Granted when you use nitrates they work they really work. Tons of growth - sometimes out of control growth (let me say it again UNBELIEVABLE GROWTH) but after awhile the organic material goes dead. the soil locks up due to salts lack of beneficial microbes and this area has to be treated with more and more synthetics (and water) - like drugs - it takes more and more to get the same results. These are proven facts. Why do you see places like FL doing what they are doing (watch what happens on 2009 when all the scientific results are compiled for the Washington DC project on the national lawn). Synthetics started up in WW1 - the Germans - well like any good thing (on the surface) is winding down and I would encourage you do like I'm doing and be a little more open minded towards how to go Green. It will be tougher and tougher to make a living with synthetics. Look around what do you see? People like me with medical problems why....? Until it happens to you or someone you love it just does not make sense and I understand but there are other alternatives.
There's allot more than 2,4-d going on with synthetics - that's just one of thousands of poisons applied to yards. Would you drink it? Even 2,4-d has a LD50 rating and I bet 100% 2,4-d concentration would be a very little amount to... you. I'm sure compost tea also has a LD50 rating but you would have to drink a ton of tea and you would get sick before you could ever .... Scary stuff, those synthetics!
By the way my business commitment is to tell everyone I come in contact with the truth - I'm 1 of the seven!


You are saying trees can grow without fert! Well so will grass, but Harry Homeowner isn't just happy with "grass". They want us to feed it so they can get the most out of their lawn. To have a beautiful and weed free lawn we have to use fertility and weed control (in an educated and ethical manner).

Again the LD50 tells one that if they ingersted the same amounts of 2-4,D, Roundup and Vinegar....that they die by drinking vinegar first!

That is what an LD50 is!

You are not going to get anywhere on this forum with your talk, as most of us on this side is using snythetic fert and chemicals because we they work,they have been proven and are safe when used correctly!

rcreech
01-31-2008, 07:12 AM
I fertilized my lawn for 5 years and then quit. After 5 years I started again. I have now been fertilizing it for the past four years. My lawn did not die and no lawn has ever died after being taken off synthetic fertilizer. What they do is get thinner and will not get thicker again until additional nitrogen is added again, whether it be organic or synthetic. We have measured salt levels in the soil and they are perfectly acceptable. To say that I have no microbial activity in the soil is just not true. The organic matter is being broken down. I just had a soil test done on a lawn that has had fertilizer applied to it for over 5 years. The level of organic matter in the soil was 5%. Why does it irritate you organic guys so much that we use synthetic fertilizers. If you want to use organics go ahead. It's as if your not happy unless your beating us down for what we do.


I always get a kick out of the "salt" theory of these guys! We are putting down such minute amounts of fert 2-3#/K...and they act like we are putting 100's of pounds of salt!

I would love to run a test on synthetics vs. organic ferts and see what the salt content is. I really don't care so I am not going to do it....but I bet the results wouldn't be too much different!

If synthetic ferts are so bad and have so much salt....then how did we go from raising 30-40 Bu corn to 80-100 Bu corn when starting to use synthetic fertilizer? We can now raise well over 200 Bu corn, but alot of that also has to do with genetics!

My point...anything can grow...but to get maximum benefit, you have to fert.

I just say "To each his own....and to us the best"

NattyLawn
01-31-2008, 08:26 AM
I always get a kick out of the "salt" theory of these guys! We are putting down such minute amounts of fert 2-3#/K...and they act like we are putting 100's of pounds of salt!

I would love to run a test on synthetics vs. organic ferts and see what the salt content is. I really don't care so I am not going to do it....but I bet the results wouldn't be too much different!

If synthetic ferts are so bad and have so much salt....then how did we go from raising 30-40 Bu corn to 80-100 Bu corn when starting to use synthetic fertilizer? We can now raise well over 200 Bu corn, but alot of that also has to do with genetics!

My point...anything can grow...but to get maximum benefit, you have to fert.

I just say "To each his own....and to us the best"

Well, you get more yield, and every year the soil's more depleted. You add more fert to get those same Bu's. I'm sure you have an argument telling me otherwise.

Let's all go apply Round Up and tell the customer it's sugar water! Can't wait for that lawsuit!

NattyLawn
01-31-2008, 08:29 AM
It isn't called a license, it's called being certified. Unless you were asking about my business license? Or if my company is a NYS registered pesticide company? Yes, I am certified. And no, I am not Mr Knowledgable. So, if Merit uses nicotine, is it organic? Got any more friendly questions?

There is room in the wolrd for both organics and synthetics. Is this like some organic nazi PETA type crashing of this forum?

No Merit is not organic, but the AI was derived from nicotine. The AI is also the same in some flea and tick products for dogs. Anything with a carbon molecule is considered organic over here.

NattyLawn
01-31-2008, 08:43 AM
I fertilized my lawn for 5 years and then quit. After 5 years I started again. I have now been fertilizing it for the past four years. My lawn did not die and no lawn has ever died after being taken off synthetic fertilizer. What they do is get thinner and will not get thicker again until additional nitrogen is added again, whether it be organic or synthetic. We have measured salt levels in the soil and they are perfectly acceptable. To say that I have no microbial activity in the soil is just not true. The organic matter is being broken down. I just had a soil test done on a lawn that has had fertilizer applied to it for over 5 years. The level of organic matter in the soil was 5%. Why does it irritate you organic guys so much that we use synthetic fertilizers. If you want to use organics go ahead. It's as if your not happy unless your beating us down for what we do.

All the original poster did was ask for anything other than Round Up to kill weeds. I know of some, and the Round Up defenders jumped up. Guess what? I don't think Round Up's that bad! It only kills what it touches and has very little soil residual. I use it to kill lawns before renovations (along with BurnOut, Scythe and EMG). Now, public perception is very bad for this product and even after giving customers the "I'd rather spray Round Up than herbicide" rap and list the items menitoned above, people still don't want to use it! So you present other options. While most of you wouldn't want this type of customer, I encounter these people almost daily. They'll let me spread Merit or spray Mec-Amine D and act like Round Up's the worst chemical out there.

Now, as far as your microbial theory goes, if you or rcreech want to get bio-assays done of your soils, put up or shut up....You can speculate all you want, but the test will tell the truth. They ain't cheap....

humble1
01-31-2008, 02:29 PM
Ask this question in the organic side - try vinegar or a blend of vinegar and citrus acid or best use a small propane torch and burn it out - it may take several app's but this just means more money for you make sure she is aware it may take 5 or more times to get rid of the pest (Bermuda is the toughest of all pests)- who knows what the dog is allergic to but synthetic chemicals like roundup can for many folks/pets be very lethal even at 2%. My cousin has very severe autism and the doctors have positively linked it to lawn herbicides. I mayself have had reactions from applications - this is why I stopped using them.

Facts -

#1 - Organic lawn care doesn’t use toxic lawn chemicals, which make one in seven adults ill, and have shown to lead to a plethora of cancers, developmental disorders and health-related issues in children.
#2 – Organic lawn care utilizes natural substances that are not harmful to animals. Synthetic lawn care chemicals have long been linked to reductions in bird populations and beneficial insects such as bees, which pollinate our food crops. Purdue University and others have linked lawn chemicals to cancers in cats and dogs.
#3 – In organic lawn care, toxic pest controls are rarely necessary. The EPA estimates only 35% of synthetic fertilizers we apply ever make it to the grass – 65% runs into our ground water, lakes, streams, or volatizes into the air we breathe. Even worse, only 2% of weed killers, insecticides and fungicides treat the pest, so 98% of these poisons go somewhere else; into our bodies, our pets, into the air, or into the ground water.

I also do some organic apps, but i have to point out something. ANY study can be twisted so you get a outcome you want. I will post a stat, more than a 1000 people in the USA will die within a year of having consumed turkey. Well im sure the number is higher but its not the turkey that killed them, but i can link the two together. How about radon causing cancer. Well most of those people that died were chain smokers so did the radon do it or did the smoking do it?

Go back to the organic thread your giving me a headache, or was it the pesticide residue on my food that gave me the headache? lol:hammerhead:

Victor
01-31-2008, 06:39 PM
I think you're both missing the point here. The truth of the matter is that as long as these synthetic products are responsibly used, they're not dangerous. Like anything else, put these products in the hands of someone who's irresponsible and there's a good chance damage to both people and property will result.

rcreech
01-31-2008, 07:09 PM
Well, you get more yield, and every year the soil's more depleted. You add more fert to get those same Bu's. I'm sure you have an argument telling me otherwise.

Let's all go apply Round Up and tell the customer it's sugar water! Can't wait for that lawsuit!


No, I don't have an argument as I am glad you got my point! With us applying all this fert (crop removal or buildup), my point was SALT is not an issue when applying synthetic fert in large amounts!

As far as the Roundup app, how and why would there be a lawsuit?

#1) I was kidding and that is why I added the little laughing dude.
#2) They would never know and could never prove it wasn't sugar water.

Barefoot James
01-31-2008, 07:32 PM
I'm sorry I thought we were trying to give options for this "original question".
i have a cust who asked me today about what she can put in beds to kill bermuda grass. guess dog is allergic she said. but she does not want to use round up. any ideas of something safe???? surely someone else has ran into this. thanks
Please give us your input on options for this, so that the CUSTOMER is happy. I try to always keep the CUSTOMER happy and LISTEN to what they request - mine are valid (and safe) - vinegar, citrus acids and propane torches - I did see another that the customer may like too - the first answer by Natty. But applying round up when the CUSTOMER specifically said they did not want it and then telling the CUSTOMER that it is sugar water is not something safe in this CUSTOMERS opinion because they already told us - "she does not want to use round up". I would not go and apply tons of straight unprocessed cow manure or arsenic or all the other stuff proposed on this thread. I try to do what is right and focus on what the CUSTOMER wants. This is how we grow our business here in Kentucky.

I do use synthetics but try to use them in a minor way while trying to transition my yards to "safe organic" methods. I use safe processed (tested) compost, tested teas, tested mulches, protein meals (alfalfa, soy, corn) and as a transition product I use Nutrient Plus products (yes they have synthetics - I know but they also have organic matter) - I'm all about treating the soil, so the soil can begin to make it's own food - organically. I also do heavy seed/compost applications to really accelerate the organic transition.

I think I said this three times already - YES SYNTHETICS really do work. You can get the best of both worlds by learning about both sides and how to be responsible with both and blend both to maximize the benefits of both- but you HAVE to have organic matter in your soil. That said for me I choose to use my synthetic product I use to bridge and transition over into "known safe organic practices/programs". that is me and "I understand those that don't" it is your business and your life. This is :usflag: and we have this choice.

One thing we all need to do better is to listen to our customers and take care of them to the best of our ability.

RigglePLC
01-31-2008, 08:06 PM
Try boiling water on that Bermuda. Organic and it will not start the bark on fire--like the propane torch.
Also there area couple of organic products based on strong soaps--perhaps Scythe.

Also cover it with non-toxic black plastic in hot weather, maybe adding cut-to-fit solar pool cover--like solarization. Cut openings for the shrubbery you are trying to preserve. You probably need a temp of about 130 degrees. The exhaust from your truck piped under there will make it go faster.

Barefoot James
01-31-2008, 08:36 PM
This is what this site is all about great info! I had a synthetic green on my yard and moved it and the bermuda that used to be under never came back. Covering is a great idea. Takes awhile but TOTALLY safe for everybody!

josh3338
01-31-2008, 08:55 PM
originally i just figured i would use round up but wanted to check what else if anything was out there. the lady wanted me to hand weed the beds. yeah right!!

this is why I love this site.. hahahahaha you guys crack me up!!!! thanks to all for the info. it was a good laugh

Barefoot James
01-31-2008, 09:20 PM
Dude, we all take this seriously if you don't I doubt you will have much success.

Quote from josh338 - originally i just figured i would use round up but wanted to check what else if anything was out there.

Question - when the lady (your CUSTOMER) told you not to use roundup why would you even consider it. Sorry dude, but guys like you should get into another business, if you acted on this, you would make use all look bad - at least you consulted for a 2, 3 4 and many other options - this is a sign of maturity - hate to sound like your Dad but I am one - I'm too old to play games and I know the consequences.

ArizPestWeed
01-31-2008, 10:21 PM
Spray Roundup and tell it is sugar water!

She/or the dog will never know the difference! Gly is a very safe product especially when mixed down to a 2% solution.

If her dog still has "allergies"....just tell her it must be alergic to sugar also! :laugh:

I was thinking the very same thing as I scrolled down to your post

ArizPestWeed
01-31-2008, 10:25 PM
Nothing you put down is 100% safe! Organic, "safe" or synthetic.

What about your foot , it kills weeds

Rayholio
02-01-2008, 12:43 AM
LOL I've always loved the organic angle..

pretty much any organic chemical is still... . well... I just said it.. A CHEMICAL.

The organic chemicals almost always rate WAY higher in toxicity.

The organic solutions sometimes require build-up time.. applying the same chemical again, and again until the concentration is high enough.

There is NO testing, or monitoring of organics... it could take years of real word use before problems are realized..

and the real kicker.. at least in my neck of the woods, my customer surveys reveal that only about 2-3% admit to having enviormental concerns affect their purchasing decisions.. and there is no organic service where those people are harbored around here.. So.. enjoy your potential 5% of the market. :)

Bottom line, Enviormentalists are all memebers of a cult.. a religion. It requires FAITH, and occasionally a leader will step up, and spead lies to recruit new members to their faith.

Want to start arguing about global climate change next? did you know that just the amount of carbon INCREASE from china this year is equal to about.. geeze.. I forget.. but I think it was 40,000 escalades each driven 15,000 miles.. So forget about your hybrid.. you've been recruited. mindless sheep. What about all of the other climate changes throughout history when humans could not have been a factor? or... ok.. I'll stop there..

Sorry if it's a little harsh... this just set me off tonight.. must be the political climate. :)

I understand that there are bad registered chemicals out there.. there's something on them that might help.. it's called a label. USE THE APPROPRIATE PPE, and follow the instructions, and you'll be ok.. Where's the label for the bad organics?

geeze.. sorry guys.. LOL

Whitey4
02-01-2008, 01:19 AM
LMAO Ray! Yes, so much of what you say is too terribly true!

Having said that, my region is a bit more senitive to all this stuff. My first pitch is to explain that as a trained tech using weekly IPM, I am better equiped to minimize the use of all chemicals, organic or sythetic. The people who pay 3 times the price for an "organic" head of lettuce will never be one of my customers.

But... I am a bit of an environmentalist at the same time. We have a growing problem with nitrates in the water supply here. It's the clueless LCO's and the home owners that are causing the problem. The nitrate problem is getting bad. 4 of the 8 wells in my water district got shut down last year due to nitrates. People here know about that. Then, there is the breast cancer hot spot issue that always gets wrongly blamed on ferts and squirts.

Global warming? Holy heell, I have no clue. Who ya want to believe? The temps are going up, but is it just the natural cycle, or not? is it being accelerated with greenhouse gases? probably a bit of both, but I'm not about to take a postion on that and debate it either.

Remember the old "silent majority"? Most people are moderates on these issues, but you never hear from them. Only extemists get heard. Moderates don't increase ratings or newpaper circulation. That even happens in microcosm at this site. One extremist shows up, and the thread has a life of it's own.

Rayholio
02-01-2008, 01:36 AM
I'm with ya bro.. I try to be good to the enviorment. locally and globally. I'm not convinced that humans have caused global cimate change.. but I know that humans need to be aware of their actions.. as in your town's situation.

I'm mostly a moderate too.. but the enviormentalists have been saying 'the debate is over'... I don't remember ever having it!? LOL

dailyalice
11-26-2008, 06:25 PM
Pubmed is an online database of peer reviewed scientific articles run by the National Institutes of Health. On Pubmed you can find the abstract for this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
which after analyzing a lot of data says that there is evidence of a link between the use of Round up and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
LD50s only take into account short term effects, so does not look at all at long term effects like promotion of mutations causing cancer. I would rather get something I could recover from, like irritated eyes or a skin burn, than something insidious and deadly like lymphoma.
As for the dog's allergies, the dog is allergic to the BERMUDA GRASS, not the Roundup. And he is allergic to the pollens of the Bermuda grass, so putting up a fence is not going to help.
Shame on you for making assumptions about the product in question and the owner of the dog. I'll never ask any of you to work on my lawn.

Kiril
11-26-2008, 06:42 PM
Forget about the argument about toxicity, what about the ecological consequences?


http://www.weedscience.org/ChronMOA.GIF (http://www.weedscience.org/In.asp)

http://www.weedscience.org/WorldDistn.GIF

PSUTURFGEEK
11-26-2008, 09:15 PM
Just incase this helps, Azatrol which is a PBI Gordons product is an insecticide that can be applied and pets or kids may re enter area immediatly.

rcreech
11-27-2008, 08:02 AM
Pubmed is an online database of peer reviewed scientific articles run by the National Institutes of Health. On Pubmed you can find the abstract for this article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
which after analyzing a lot of data says that there is evidence of a link between the use of Round up and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
LD50s only take into account short term effects, so does not look at all at long term effects like promotion of mutations causing cancer. I would rather get something I could recover from, like irritated eyes or a skin burn, than something insidious and deadly like lymphoma.
As for the dog's allergies, the dog is allergic to the BERMUDA GRASS, not the Roundup. And he is allergic to the pollens of the Bermuda grass, so putting up a fence is not going to help.
Shame on you for making assumptions about the product in question and the owner of the dog. I'll never ask any of you to work on my lawn.

Moral of the story...nothing is technically "safe" anymore. Everyone....thinks everything causes cancer now, but nobody really knows!

You just need to RESPECT the products and protect yourself (ie PPE or wash hands/body as needed) while handling pesticides.

There are many products we use and put in our body EVERYDAY that we don't know about.

I hate to see you just select glyphosate out of the air.

Look at the foods we eat all the time with PRESERVATIVES, we pump GAS, who knows what we are BREATING in the air etc, etc.

RigglePLC
11-27-2008, 12:06 PM
I don't think much of the Swedish study. The Green movement is big over there. Essentially it is the same as the study by Hoar and her colleagues 15 years ago in Kansas, eventually discounted by the EPA, due to inadequate measurement of exposure.

"Exposure was estimated by questionaire." This means that they asked average people how much pesticide they had been exposed to years ago, over the phone. Imagine the questions: "Were you wearing gloves?" 'What concentration and formulation did you use?" "Did you spill any on your shoes?" This isn't measurement. It is estimating. It is unlikly that anyone could estimate the level of pesticides in their bodies during the stated "latency period of 10 years".

It seems likely to me that people who were sick with NHL would be more likely to report chemical exposure when thinking about a possible cause. Perhaps hopeing to sue a chemical company. Thus introducing bias into the data.

They say they found a "link". A technical term--this means they found no evidence. They didn't ask about smoking, sunscreen use, exposure to benzene, or recreational drugs.

greendoctor
11-27-2008, 12:43 PM
It is my belief that any chemical is a potential carcinogen if regular overexposure occurs. Having said that, I use appropriate PPE and my clients are warned to keep themselves, their children and pets away from treated areas until sprays have dried. Also, I have not seen infants allowed to crawl on grass or toddlers walking on grass barefoot. Most parents here have some common sense. If the lawn is green, perfect and without a weed, there is a reason for that.

tremor
11-27-2008, 01:04 PM
These type of statements really get me irritated. They have no basis in fact, but are used to scare people into thinking synthetic bad, will kill, organic good.
__________________
- I'm 1 of the seven!

Hey James

Where are these "facts" published? I guarantee that you CANNOT find a shred of evidence that Glyphosate causes cancer.

Your statements have no basis in fact.

JDUtah
11-27-2008, 01:43 PM
If the lawn is green, perfect and without a weed, there is a reason for that.

If you have the perfect lawn, but can't use it for a lawn, why have one?

IMO lawns are for WAY more than asthetics.

No beef at you GreedDoctor, I know that is what people want sometimes, but for me, I'll take a weed or two and be able to use my lawn for living.

Like playing football this morning...

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-27-2008, 01:59 PM
anybody ever hear of long term persistence in the environment and inert ingredients?

and the problems /effects from that?

there are study's that say these chemical herbicides/insecticides/fungicides are some what safe if used properly but there's plenty of unknown dangers aswell. the main AI maybe safe to a degree but what about the inerts ingredients? you know the ones not listed or not required to list???

i read many reports about human exposure and environmental impact, and the fact is there's just as much known about the dangers as much as the UNknown dangers aswell.

let me say to i'm certified applicator and a licensed biz. i use the best tool for the job.

but as some had said if you use them in a proper manner "ipm" negative environmental problem's are reduced. true.

problem is most don't do that? i've been in this biz for 13 years and worked for many a company and guys just throw sh@t down cause they can bill it, few really practice ipm
thats the reality... i visit this forum sometimes and read that many of you don't fit that stereo type but there are more out there who could give a f... about anything but profit's. hence the water problems that exist pretty much every where now.

it's going to get to the point where legislation will limit use of these products including synthetic ferts because must don't give a crap when applying,

prediction...... organic lawn care 2020.......30% or more market share?

greendoctor
11-27-2008, 02:22 PM
I vet my customers very carefully. From the start, it is understood that I do not make "preventative" applications or unnecessary applications. However I am not locked into the "chemical Nazi" way of doing things, organic at all costs, no matter how poor the outcome. People have realistic expectations. I am never caught in the contradictions some of you are embroiled in, lawn has to look good, but no chemicals. No weeds in the beds, but you cannot spray. I have a 12 month growing season. On average, I apply 12 rounds to the lawn and 12 on ornamental areas. It is rare that I am applying a pesticide in either area more than 5 out of the 12 rounds.

JDUtah
11-27-2008, 02:50 PM
How long have you been applying synthetic fert to your lawn? If you have been applying chem ferts you have very little microbial activity. Chem ferts have high salt content. The salts act like "salt on slug" and kills the microbes. Do you aerate your lawn every year? Ever wonder why that's such a common practice? Another thing, chem ferts have water soluble N. It doesn't require microbial activty for breakdown, it requires water. If you want to get a bio-assay of your soil vs. organic soil, let me know.


NattyLawn, compost done properly (minimal leaching and volatization during the process) has a decent amount of salt.

I just thought of this and haven't done it yet, but let's say you fertilize 100 square feet of turf with compost or synthetic fert. Let’s compare the two based on normal application methods/amounts…

Compost- Say the covering will be 1/8" (usually 1/4" for a good topdressing). So at 1/8" you will use 7.5 gallons of compost.

Synthetic- Say you use a 32-5-7, this means you would use .35 lbs (159 grams) of fertilizer to cover the same area... (many ferts would be less, like urea would only use .23lbs or 104 grams)

I would bet that if you mixed that amount of compost in say 20 gallons of water and compared it to that amount of synthetic fert in 20 gallons of water...

That the EC and TDS (measurements of salt) will be higher in the compost solution.

I'll be glad to do this next spring.

Point is, both ways are just as safe and just as risky... organics does not mean everything is completely fine, safe, and dandy... recall the 40+ wild horses that died just outside Las Vegas... they died of naturally occurring nitrate salts.

I am for organics, yes... but not because this salt crap. IMO people that buy into jingle that salt kills microbes are just enticed by intrigue from the microbe concept.

Another example: Urea feeds microbes that help make it plant avaiable (even yeast eats urea)... so urea applications feed soil microbes as well... good job synthetic guys, you are feeding the soil microbes. I'm so proud! *I wipe a tear*

I can't find it but I once linked a study where people used urea to increase the speed and percentage of which a compost pile matured. Synthetic ferts kill microbes huh? Then this urea was so caustic it chemically turned the cellulose into humus? :nono:

Not to nitpick, remember I am a fan of Organic... but it MUST be beaten out of the organic people’s minds that organics are safer. They are not... You need more product, potentially more salt, and now you add the chance of spraying dangerous pathogens on peoples yards...

(Some) organic products are more sustainable, so I believe in them. But they are not safer. In fact IMO they are more dangerous because they are not as regulated yet.

Maybe think of salt index like this…
The soil needs nitrogen, and only nitrogen. It does not need P, K, Fe, Mg, Ca, or any other nutrient (salt). If you supply that nutrient in the form of synthetic fertilizer you can use very specific nutrients and re-balance that soil by only adding the salts that the soil/plants need.

Now try to do that organically, add compost… well first, you are adding more non target salts than you are the target nutrient (nitrogen)… plus you have to add a lot more product to get the nitrogen you need… plus, MOST of that nitrogen will not be available for the first year…

Use, kelp? Same thing. fish emulsion? Same thing. Cornmeal? Same thing. Maybe not as unbalanced as compost but still, same thing…

So organically in this context, you have to add WAY more salts (especially non targeted ones) than if you were using synthetics. Plants are sensitive to salts just as much as microbes and if you use the model I just laid out, there is more potential to harm soil microbes using organic methods than synthetic. If the plant is healthy, I bet there will be plenty of soil microbes that are just as healthy whether you use organic or synthetic.

Organics (compost)? Yes. Because the salt/kill microbe argument? No way.

But my opinionated rant is over... Now, I just need a tds meter and some compost...

In the meantime, would you mind sharing a study that proves the responsible use of synthetic fertilizers kills soil microbes?

Edit: O wow, I just looked at the thread title, SORRY, way off topic.

Kiril
11-27-2008, 03:11 PM
NattyLawn, compost done properly (minimal leaching and volatization during the process) has a decent amount of salt..

Not necessarily.

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-27-2008, 03:57 PM
jd,

do you own a EC meter? i do........ and you will not get a higher tds from compost compared to synthetic npk in solution.....sorry


when people hear others say high salts synthetic fert kill microbes...` people usually take that out of context. all "salts" ions...inorganic chemicals whether from organic or synthetic sources will take water away from microbes. it's the concentraion that matters.

that being said organic ferts usually don't contain or release their "salts" ions as fast as soluble synthetic ferts..

when you say urea feeds microbes which is true, what microbes do they feed? good ones bad ones, some good but more bad? just feeding those microbes,does that help the other microbes in soil? do those nutrients help the microbes responsible for soil building? ete? or do you only select/feed certine community's?

buy only supplying one type of microbe food do the others that are beneficial starve?
what effect does that n supply only have on the rest of the community if no other food sources are being used?

i'm not saying don't use urea....not at all!!! it's the cheapest most stable form of N available to us as pro's but. is it healthy to the whole soil community? just because you get plant growth doesn't mean it's beneficial for the long run? balance, understanding what your feeding and not feeding goes a long way to IMPROVE your soil, reducing more and more synthetics needed?

JDUtah
11-27-2008, 05:06 PM
Deeproots, you compared the extracted salts from 7 gallons of compost to .35 lbs of 32-5-7? Mind posting the EC numbers? Thanks in advance!

Also remember, I am a fan of compost. My context was soil needing only N... which is known from a soil test result (isn't that the push from organic people anyway?)... my point was to use compost (or other organic inputs) to increase just N is silly (in context of the salt kills microbes argument).

Can you, Deeproots, tell me what microbes are good and what ones are bad? No one knows that (there are over 5,000 of them of which most are very hard to differentiate, sometimes only through DNA analysis)... Good luck telling me your microbes are good, but the ones in my balanced soil are bad...

IMO microbes are area/soil specific too... some are good in one situation but bad in another...

Is your soil clay or sand? How often does "nature" water? What microbes best fit your specific situation?

Organic principles promote native plant species; but why not native microbe species?

I personally will leave it to nature to select the "good" microbes that will thrive in the same environment that allows my plants to thrive... that is the selection of microbes that I want...

For instance… organic people say anaerobic microbes are bad in the soil… well duh... but why? Does the plant die because the microbes are ‘feeding’ it the wrong things (poisoning it)? NO! It dies for the same reason that anaerobic microbes are present… there is no air!

So I’ll focus on the right environment for my plant (moisture %, SOM, available nutrients, compaction, etc) and let nature choose which microbes are ‘good’ in that environment.


Compost is good yes... but the responsible use of salt fertilizers does not wipe out microbe populations.

That is all I was saying...

tremor
11-27-2008, 09:36 PM
What does compost have to do with herbicide safety? Message board chaos theory at it's train wrecking finest here.

rcreech
11-27-2008, 10:09 PM
What does compost have to do with herbicide safety? Message board chaos theory at it's train wrecking finest here.

I have seen way too much the last few days on here! There is so much poor and inacurate information put on here...it is scary!

I hate to say it...but it has been coming mostly from the organic side or "green people" mostly!

If it isn't fumes from urea it is salts from fert bla, bla, bla!

I am just going to keep my mouth shut for once, as I am learning these people don't respond well to facts! :dizzy:

PSUTURFGEEK
11-28-2008, 12:00 AM
I agree 100%

Barefoot James
11-28-2008, 12:03 AM
I never said what you quoted I said - that was said by some dude named Mike 1.

this is what was said - and my proof is the thousands $$ of doctors tests I had done as My mother and I are both allergic to herbs and pesticides. the proof is US (my mother and me) - can you UNDERSTAND that??

Original post-
Hammer on nail head - direct hit! - I said this

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These type of statements really get me irritated. They have no basis in fact, but are used to scare people into thinking synthetic bad, will kill, organic good.
__________________
Mike I
Mike's Total Lawn Care I did not say this

Mike - the most prolific (which means bears great fruit) forests (old growth, rain, etc) in the world - Question - who fertilizes those? Just God! Heck they can't even grow some of the stuff in these forests because they don't even know what it needs.
Granted when you use nitrates they work they really work. Tons of growth - sometimes out of control growth (let me say it again UNBELIEVABLE GROWTH) but after awhile the organic material goes dead. the soil locks up due to salts lack of beneficial microbes and this area has to be treated with more and more synthetics (and water) - like drugs - it takes more and more to get the same results. These are proven facts. Why do you see places like FL doing what they are doing (watch what happens on 2009 when all the scientific results are compiled for the Washington DC project on the national lawn). Synthetics started up in WW1 - the Germans - well like any good thing (on the surface) is winding down and I would encourage you do like I'm doing and be a little more open minded towards how to go Green. It will be tougher and tougher to make a living with synthetics. Look around what do you see? People like me with medical problems why....? Until it happens to you or someone you love it just does not make sense and I understand but there are other alternatives.
There's allot more than 2,4-d going on with synthetics - that's just one of thousands of poisons applied to yards. Would you drink it? Even 2,4-d has a LD50 rating and I bet 100% 2,4-d concentration would be a very little amount to... you. I'm sure compost tea also has a LD50 rating but you would have to drink a ton of tea and you would get sick before you could ever .... Scary stuff, those synthetics!
By the way my business commitment is to tell everyone I come in contact with the truth - I'm 1 of the seven! I said this

Kiril
11-28-2008, 12:41 AM
I am learning these people don't respond well to facts! :dizzy:

I admit, some of the information flying around in this thread is highly suspect from both sides, but I am curious what "facts" you are referring to?

rcreech
11-28-2008, 11:50 AM
I admit, some of the information flying around in this thread is highly suspect from both sides, but I am curious what "facts" you are referring to?

I could go on and on and on and on etc as there has been tons of bad information PUKED out on here!

But here is just ONE example....

The one fellar back on about the 5th or 6th page was talking about salts from syn fert killing bacteria and organisms and stated that it only took water to make N available.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

It does take moisture...but it also takes nitorsomonas and nitrobacter (not sure of spelling) which is micro's/bac (part of the N cycle) to break down N.

I have not looked the N cycle for a coulple years, but it is how N changes forms and I can look at it real quickly and post details if needed.

It has been along time...but from my memory that is technically what N Serve and the other nitrification inhibors do...they actually inhibit or kill the bacteria to keep N from changing so it can't denitrify and go off as a gas, leach etc!

That is the SIMPLE facts that I am referring to!

Kiril
11-28-2008, 01:09 PM
The one fellar back on about the 5th or 6th page was talking about salts from syn fert killing bacteria and organisms and stated that it only took water to make N available.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

Actually Rod, depending on the type of N being applied, it can very well be true. Nitrate is the preferred form of N for most plants. Ferts that contain nitrates (ex. ammonium nitrate) only require dissolution to make that source of nitrogen available to plants. Ammonium can also be utilized directly by some plants, however given the preferred form is nitrate, it will need to go through the nitrification process.

For your review, plant transport mechanisms for nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium molecules.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort640c/nuptake/nu00001.htm

That is the SIMPLE facts that I am referring to!

You might want to check your "facts" next time before posting.

JDUtah
11-28-2008, 03:01 PM
Some synthetic ferts (like urea) do rely on microbes to become plant available.

Others that are more mineral (ie simple salt form) like Ammonium Nitrate ionize in water and become plant available instantly...

BUT let us not get carried away and look past the fact that microbes need these mineral salts just as much as plants do. Plants need them to make new cells, microbes need them to replicate (make new cells)...

The truth is, plants and microbes need salts. And (being landscapers) we should opt for microbes that need the same kind/concentration/ratio of nutrients as is most suitable for our plants...

Get the plants to grow well, and nature will select the "good" microbes.

Before I get beat up by organic friends... remember, I believe in closed systems (as much as possible). I do not agree with the fert, bag clippings, just to need more fert system... I also believe that region appropriate plants (turf or not) can go a long way in reducing inputs)

BUT, I hate lies that mislead not only the general public, but professional’s as well... so I spoke up… salt fertilizers when used properly do not kill soil microbes. Salt fertilizers feed microbes just like they feed plants. Salt fertilizers are sometimes better and more environmentally friendly than organic nutrients.

I am STILL waiting on an article to prove me wrong… So is TimTurf, he’s been waiting for almost 5 years now… http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=57785

Or how about some SFI tests that prove that regular use of salt ferts do not wipe out microbe populations?
"I just got back my first soil food web test from a new customer who used chemicals for years. 'Organism Biomass Data' are all in range or above" http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=247016&highlight=soil+food+web+test+results

But I believe this should be the end of the major digression in this thread. Sorry again for bringing it back up guys. I'm done posting this stuff here.

ICT Bill
11-28-2008, 03:15 PM
This "salt" subject came from the ag side not the lawn and landscape side. Farmers have many acres to cover and will lean towards the least expensive form of nutrient that they can find in order to fertilize or amend. Often these are very high in salt content, this hold true for the golf industry as well.

JD is correct, microbes use fertilizers as food

Organic, synthetic big deal. they are all nutrients, some are immediately available and some are not but they are all microbe food and eventually plant food

what was the subject of this thread??? Oh yeah "safe" bermuda grass killer. I say lean over and pull it out, how long could it possibly take, not as long as this thread has been around. :) I don't know wether it safe or not you may pull your back out

JDUtah
11-28-2008, 05:53 PM
what was the subject of this thread??? Oh yeah "safe" bermuda grass killer. I say lean over and pull it out, how long could it possibly take, not as long as this thread has been around. :) I don't know wether it safe or not you may pull your back out

Bill,
Is that directed to me? There is hardly a stick involved when I choose to speak up against the spread of propagated lies. This is a public forum and IMO it is silly and immature for you to attack someone, or group of people, who want to make sure people are not misled with false information...

But what do you care... those lies help increase your market… how convenient to just let them slide…

rcreech
11-28-2008, 06:38 PM
Actually Rod, depending on the type of N being applied, it can very well be true. Nitrate is the preferred form of N for most plants. Ferts that contain nitrates (ex. ammonium nitrate) only require dissolution to make that source of nitrogen available to plants. Ammonium can also be utilized directly by some plants, however given the preferred form is nitrate, it will need to go through the nitrification process.

For your review, plant transport mechanisms for nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium molecules.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort640c/nuptake/nu00001.htm



You might want to check your "facts" next time before posting.

I KNEW YOU WOULD TRY AND FIND SOMETHING TO PICK ON AS I SEEN EXACTLY WHERE YOU WERE COMING FROM, AND THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE WAY I DID!

YOU GOT MY POINT!

QUIT TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS!

WHO APPLIES AMMONIUM NITRATE TO THEIR LAWNS ON HERE ANYWAY! :dizzy:

NICE TRY!


HERE IS ANOTHER FACT....AND THE BEsT ONE I ALWAYS BRING UP!

Why do our corn/bean yields continues to increase by 3-5% over the last 40 years since we have been using syn fert? If there is so much salt...then wouln't our yields be going down?

rcreech
11-28-2008, 06:45 PM
Some synthetic ferts (like urea) do rely on microbes to become plant available.

Others that are more mineral (ie simple salt form) like Ammonium Nitrate ionize in water and become plant available instantly...


EXACTLY!

But people like Kiril who apply ammonium nitrate to their lawns only need water! :laugh:

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-28-2008, 07:23 PM
jd, i though you where done post on this thread?


what are the lies? you mean "salts" or more appropriately different ions at high concentrations kill microbes? thats not true? what microbes are we talking about? soil aerobic bacteria/fungi/protozoa/nematodes? or anaerobes?

whats wrong with anaerobes you say?......it's that dame concentration thing again???what substances do most anaerobes produce?



why do you take peoples words misinterpret them and take it so literally as fact and say everybody says that?


what is needed for a "salt" to dissolve? water ions h+ and oh, wow it takes water away......why would that be harm full????????to the plant too even????

no kidding microbes as well as humans need different "salts" ions as you say it

their nutrients.......remember salt's doesn't mean just Na
but you know that?

let cont...on the other forum?

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-28-2008, 07:35 PM
jd,

and i can tell you what bugs are in my soil......amoeba, flagellates,nematodes dont tolerate low o2 levels, if their there, most likly you have alot of o2 in the soil where their present.

i don't need to know their specific names just only whether they are aerobic or anaerobic organisms tells the story

amoeba= o2 above 6ppm= most likly areobic bacteria their too


theres more to it to but this isn't the place

rcreech
11-28-2008, 07:55 PM
You might want to check your "facts" next time before posting.

Kiril,

You forced me to pull out my "soils and fert bible" and review it! What you stated to me is accurate...but what "facts" did I state that wasn't accurate?

I never mentioned the type of N...or what was plant available so you were totally making assumptions!

I simply stated that it DOES take bacteria to complete the N cycle!

That is why I made the statement about the N inhibitors....

Again...I knew you would look for loopholes in whatever I said, but there were not any!

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-28-2008, 07:58 PM
rceech,


not pickin just askin.........is it the same seed stock from 40 years ago us?

treegal1
11-28-2008, 08:49 PM
OMG how did I miss this thread?????

rcreech
11-28-2008, 09:35 PM
rceech,


not pickin just askin.........is it the same seed stock from 40 years ago us?

I am not talking about genetics... but yes they have improved dramatically!

I am just saying that if we didn't have healthy soils, then we woudn't be increasing yields no matter how good the genetics!

If our soils were full of "salts", and didn't have any microbial life/biological activity I would find it hard to be increasing yield every year!

rcreech
11-28-2008, 09:46 PM
OMG how did I miss this thread?????

Nice avatar!

That is hilarious! :laugh:

It actually made my day!

Thanks TG!

Kiril
11-28-2008, 10:43 PM
YOU GOT MY POINT!

Yes, that point being there is alot of B.S. facts floating around in this thread, yours included.

QUIT TRYING TO SPLIT HAIRS!

Not splitting hairs, just pointing out "facts", as you like to say.

I justed wanted clarification on the "facts" you were speaking of, I certainly didn't expect you to hang yourself.

WHO APPLIES AMMONIUM NITRATE TO THEIR LAWNS ON HERE ANYWAY! :dizzy:

You didn't say what type of fertilizer Rod, you just made a general statement about nitrogen that was wrong. BTW, the United States consumed over 1 million tons of ammonium nitrate last year, so I guess someone is using it.

Also, you do realize ammonium nitrate is not the only fertilizer that contains nitrates .... right?

Furthermore, what part of plants can uptake ammonium and nitrite did you not understand?
Be a man and admit you were wrong instead of the resorting to the baseless ridicule we have seen displayed so prominently in this thread..

Why do our corn/bean yields continues to increase by 3-5% over the last 40 years since we have been using syn fert? If there is so much salt...then wouln't our yields be going down?

So you are saying that for 40 years your yields have increased by 3-5% every year with the same fertilizer inputs and nothing more?

Kiril
11-28-2008, 10:55 PM
I never mentioned the type of N!

That is right, you didn't. Your statement was general enough to assume you were talking about all forms of N. If you had intended to be specific about a type (say urea), then you should have specified urea and not made a general, all inclusive statement. Read the following pretending you are a lurker who knows nothing about fertilizers or nitrogen cycles. What do you see?

The one fellar back on about the 5th or 6th page was talking about salts from syn fert killing bacteria and organisms and stated that it only took water to make N available.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

It does take moisture...but it also takes nitorsomonas and nitrobacter (not sure of spelling) which is micro's/bac (part of the N cycle) to break down N.!

What I see is a statement by you saying sources of nitrogen need to go through the nitrogen cycle in order to become plant available.
As I have shown, nitrogen does not have to go through the nitrogen cycle to become plant available. That my fertilizer loving friend is a fact.

JDUtah
11-28-2008, 11:06 PM
Still Kiril, that is past the point...

JDUtah
11-28-2008, 11:08 PM
let['s] cont[inue]...on the other forum?

I am fishing on the other forum, go bite the bait, then we can re-open it... there.

Kiril
11-28-2008, 11:09 PM
Still Kiril, that is past the point...

Past the point of what?

JDUtah
11-28-2008, 11:14 PM
The point that using synthetic fertilizers appropriately/responsibly does not kill soil microbes.

treegal1
11-28-2008, 11:18 PM
Nice avatar!

That is hilarious! :laugh:

It actually made my day!

Thanks TG!I cant thank Kiril enough for it, it makes my day so often.

ted putnam
11-29-2008, 12:27 AM
[QUOTE=Kiril;2622585]Yes, that point being there is alot of B.S. facts floating around in this thread, yours included.








BTW, the United States consumed over 1 million tons of ammonium nitrate last year, so I guess someone is using it.


I would venture to say the vast majority of that was not purchased and applied by licensed LCO's... at least not in my area.

Kiril
11-29-2008, 12:55 AM
The point that using synthetic fertilizers appropriately/responsibly does not kill soil microbes.

Define "appropriately/responsibly".

And before you do, you might want to do some research on soil salination.

treegal1
11-29-2008, 12:57 AM
my bet is blasting. anfo???

treegal1
11-29-2008, 01:10 AM
Define "appropriately/responsibly".

And before you do, you might want to do some research on soil salination.its easy just start off with some natural gas and a factory that removes the sulfur and exposes the ZINC and so on, then we responsibly mine Florida for some P and then mine some of Canada. truck the crap all over with fossil fuels responsibly and oh god it hurts to laugh like this....................call him a tow truck

ted putnam
11-29-2008, 01:25 AM
my bet is blasting. anfo???

Exactly. I know several that use it to "blow" beaver dams. I don't personally know anybody that uses it to fertilize...

JDUtah
11-29-2008, 01:48 AM
Define "appropriately/responsibly".

And before you do, you might want to do some research on soil salination.

Current regulations in Utah restrict N fertilization to 4-6 lbs N per 1,000 sqft per year... promoting even less. They also promote that other nutrients are not applied unless needed. Oh, and they also require that you spread that N out over a number of applications (usually no more than 1 lb N at a time). To me that is the definition of responsible- less than 6 lbs N annually (usually 3-4), done over at least 5 applications... usually using a slow release fertilizer, and not putting down nutrients that are not needed.

Your point? I know what soil salination is. I also know that salts are #1 taken up and used by plants (and microbes) thus reducing soil salinity, #2 naturally (and artificially) leached out of the soil thus reducing soil salinity, and #3 volatized and denitrified returning into the atmosphere thus reducing soil salinity.

Seriously Kiril, I am surprised you are here fighting this, you know as well as I do that...
1- Salts are nutrients for plants and microbes
2- As those nutrients are used or lost the “salt” is taken out of the soil solution
3- No landscape is truly a closed system and most of them need inputs. (especially in context of this forum)
4- The overuse of EITHER synthetic or organic nutrients can cause groundwater contamination or other harm to the environment.
5- The only real argument you have against synthetic fertilizers is that they do not utilize a waste stream.
6- Both synthetic and organic nutrient products need to be used with understanding and responsibility, using as little as is required while still maintaining customer satisfaction.

Why beat up the synthetic guys by leveraging positions that only prove to aggravate them? (the Ammonium Nitrate thing) If you really want to promote the use of organic or sustainable products do not kick against the pricks. Explain that organic products #1 do a better job building soil structure (then explain how this can help the landscape professional) and #2 often convert(recycle) a waste into a product (then explain why this is desirable).

Other than that, you are doing yourself more harm than good.

You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar.

JDUtah
11-29-2008, 01:52 AM
its easy just start off with some natural gas and a factory that removes the sulfur and exposes the ZINC and so on, then we responsibly mine Florida for some P and then mine some of Canada. truck the crap all over with fossil fuels responsibly and oh god it hurts to laugh like this....................call him a tow truck

lol, I get the point, but tell me, where was your computer manufactured? And each of its respective parts? Where were the raw materials mined from? Where was teh power generated to operate your computer? (although you prolly will say solar, lol)

If you truly lived by your ideal, IMO you would not be using a computer right now.

JDUtah
11-29-2008, 02:06 AM
delete this post please

Kiril
11-29-2008, 02:28 AM
I know what soil salination is.

Do you? It would appear you do not based on your statements?

Seriously Kiril, I am surprised you are here fighting this

What am I fighting? I'm not doing anything here other than clearing up some inaccurate information. If you want me to shut up then get your facts straight.

From what I see it appears you have some type of ax to grind because the only person I see left "fighting" here is you.

treegal1
11-29-2008, 06:45 AM
lol, I get the point, but tell me, where was your computer manufactured? And each of its respective parts? Where were the raw materials mined from? Where was teh power generated to operate your computer? (although you prolly will say solar, lol)

If you truly lived by your ideal, IMO you would not be using a computer right now.no the power is nuke, I have no control on the new house(condo). solar water heater and clothes line :cry:

the computer is post consumer and real old( i recycled it)

rcreech
11-29-2008, 07:50 AM
This is actually pretty funny!

As I stated earlier...I knew you would blast me for something so I am fine with that!

Again, I was talking stictly about the N CYCLE and the mircrobial activity that is needed to complete it and was trying to make a point that they are needed! Keep the PLANT AVAILABLE FORMSand TYPE OF N out of it!

Here ya go "JUST MOISTURE WILL NOT COMPLETE THE N CYCLE!".

When talking about the N Cycle I didn't even want to try and get to what was available to the plant as I was trying to keep it GENERAL!

I was not even going down that road and that is why I GENERALIZED and simple stated that N took more then H20...so you better read my post again!

AGAIN....I didn't mistate any facts at all about N or the N cycle, and if you find somewhere in my post where I did, let me know.

You won't find me eating crow unless I screw up! And I will if you can prove anything in my GENERAL post about the N cycle was inacurrate.

Thanks,

Rodney Creech

rcreech
11-29-2008, 08:01 AM
So you are saying that for 40 years your yields have increased by 3-5% every year with the same fertilizer inputs and nothing more?

No...

We as yields increase the fertilizer recommendation increases.

Making points with you are very hard...so here ya go.

If we are making more yield...we are adding more fertlizer!

So I am trying to say in your term:

We are putting on more fertilizer "salts" then we ever have and killing out soils but increasing production! :dizzy:

Woudn't you think we our yields would be going down is salt were an issue!

And we are putting a lot less fert on lawns then crop production, so this is a non issue if applied correctly.

rcreech
11-29-2008, 08:12 AM
That is right, you didn't. Your statement was general enough to assume you were talking about all forms of N. If you had intended to be specific about a type (say urea), then you should have specified urea and not made a general, all inclusive statement. Read the following pretending you are a lurker who knows nothing about fertilizers or nitrogen cycles. What do you see?



What I see is a statement by you saying sources of nitrogen need to go through the nitrogen cycle in order to become plant available.
As I have shown, nitrogen does not have to go through the nitrogen cycle to become plant available. That my fertilizer loving friend is a fact.

I had no intentions of being specific at all!

I made a general post as I wanted to keep it simple!

If a person read just that "top portion" you have above..then yes I see what you are saying.

But if they read the whole thing like a lurker should do then they would understand!

That is like reading the first page of a book and trying to determine the end!

Wow...my fingers are getting tired! :laugh: You think JD has an ax to grind...I think you do also!

Kiril
11-29-2008, 08:28 AM
AGAIN....I didn't mistate any facts at all about N or the N cycle, and if you find somewhere in my post where I did, let me know.

I already did ... twice. If you cannot write clearly and succinctly then perhaps refrain from writing at all?

BTW, my question was not intended to bait you for blasting reasons, I simply wanted a summary of the "facts" in this thread .... and have yet to receive any.

Kiril
11-29-2008, 09:16 AM
Woudn't you think we our yields would be going down is salt were an issue!

Most likely they would. What is your leaching requirement?

And we are putting a lot less fert on lawns then crop production, so this is a non issue if applied correctly.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The problem is, ferts and pesticides are NOT being applied correctly, otherwise we wouldn't be having all the environmental issues that are associated with these now would we?

How do people determine a proper/ correct application of fertilizer/pesticide? Do People:

a) Use groundwater monitoring wells or lysimeters?

b) Collect and test any runoff from sites?

c) Test soils on a regular basis in and below the root zone to ensure what is being put down is also being used?

d) Test plant tissues for nutrient status?

e) Determine and adjust for other sources of salt inputs (soil, water) before choosing an appropriate fertilizer?

f) Do none of the above?

Note: I did not differentiate between organic and chemical, and we all know (I hope) that anything which is soluble also has the potential to leach/runoff.



I'd be willing to bet the majority of LCO's that claim they are using ferts/pesticides correctly and responsibly will select "none of the above". At best some might do item e, and maybe c. We have already established that many people feel soil monitoring through sampling is a waste of time.

I am not against using fertilizers in a limited fashion, however I also am not foolish enough to believe that a system which requires constant fertilizer/pesticide inputs is sustainable either.

You see Rod, the problem is not with fertilizers/pesticides, but rather the systems that "require" them.

BTW, the only ax I have to grind in this thread is for inaccurate information, and to be honest, I am only grinding at 1/4 speed.

NattyLawn
11-29-2008, 10:26 AM
Wow...Why was this 10 month old thread revived? It looks like we have the same results.

JDUtah
11-29-2008, 12:40 PM
Ok,

So in the end it looks like we all might be able to agree on something...

The real/root problem is environmental contamination. Whether you use organic or synthetic, it is important to use as little input as possible while still maintaining customer satisfaction.

Now for my opinion...
To me, an educated and professional synthetic fertilizer applicator is way more desirable than leaving it to the general public to do their own fertility program.

Back when I mowed lawns it was common for me to hear a customer say "Oh I have one dandelion in the backyard, I need to go buy a bag of weed and feed to put down." Not to mention how many accounts we picked up because they couldn't keep up with the mowing because of the excessive fertilizer they were putting down every month.

A professional fert company will limit inputs not only for environmental reasons, but economic reasons as well. I do not think there is a professional here that is not interested in using as little product as possible.

IMO the professional synthetic lawn care industry is serving to help the environment. The homeowners are going to fert whether the professional is there or not... so why not have an educated and regulated professional do it?

But back to the agreement, use as little product as possible while still maintaining customer satisfaction.

Kiril
11-29-2008, 12:54 PM
A professional fert company will limit inputs not only for environmental reasons, but economic reasons as well. I do not think there is a professional here that is not interested in using as little product as possible.

Perhaps for economic reasons.

IMO the professional synthetic lawn care industry is serving to help the environment.

ROFL. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck16.gif

The homeowners are going to fert whether the professional is there or not... so why not have an educated and regulated professional do it?

The only way that is going to happen is by pulling ferts and pesticides off retail shelves. Now do you really think the fert and pesticide industry is going to allow that to happen?

use as little product as possible while still maintaining customer satisfaction.

..... while slowly pushing them and their landscape towards a sustainable solution.

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-29-2008, 01:06 PM
Ok,

So in the end it looks like we all might be able to agree on something...


IMO the professional synthetic lawn care industry is serving to help the environment. The homeowners are going to fert whether the professional is there or not... so why not have an educated and regulated professional do it?




jd, ???????????


home owner may fert 1-4 times on average"more like 2-3" a year maybe 1 pre-m some spot spraying???
maybe surface/grub control at same time?


pro ferts 5-7 times
1-2 pre-m
blanket/spot spay 3-5
surface insecticide.......most apply needed or not
grub control........most apply needed or not



the pro will apply if not needed to bill costumer.....bottom line........is that good for the environment? year after year?

not saying all pro's do this??? but most i've been around do, from small LCO
to multi million dollar biz's

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-29-2008, 01:11 PM
kiril,

lolololololololololololol!

where do you down load those smilies avatars?

JDUtah
11-29-2008, 01:17 PM
jd, ???????????


home owner may fert 1-4 times on average"more like 2-3" a year maybe 1 pre-m some spot spraying???
maybe surface/grub control at same time?


pro ferts 5-7 times
1-2 pre-m
blanket/spot spay 3-5
surface insecticide.......most apply needed or not
grub control........most apply needed or not



the pro will apply if not needed to bill costumer.....bottom line........is that good for the environment? year after year?

not saying all pro's do this??? but most i've been around do, from small LCO
to multi million dollar biz's


I do not agree with you. Around here, homeowners are the dangerous ones. Believe me, there is a huge "keep up with the Jones'" mentality out here... and if not left to a professional, homeowners will surely over fertilize. They often fert just to kill one weed. Like I said... I have seen it many times.

Truegreen sprays water, they surely are helping to solve 'the problem' while focusing in their bottom line. :)

Kiril,
as far as your barf... you do not think that an ignorant homeowner is more of a threat to the environment than an educated professional?

Also you said,
"The only way that is going to happen is by pulling ferts and pesticides off retail shelves. Now do you really think the fert and pesticide industry is going to allow that to happen?"

I agree, and that is why I do not understand why it's a bad thing to give residents the option to hire an educated professional...

BUT, again, and again, you guys have proven to be relatively closed minded. Why do I even bother? The ironic part is... I am an organic guy!

Kiril
11-29-2008, 02:24 PM
BUT, again, and again, you guys have proven to be relatively closed minded. Why do I even bother? The ironic part is... I am an organic guy!

JD, the "fix" is not using less, or hiring a "professional", the "fix" is creating sustainable systems that do not need constant (or any) ferts and pesticides. Your "solution" is nothing more than a band-aid.

JDUtah
11-29-2008, 02:36 PM
JD, the "fix" is not using less, or hiring a "professional", the "fix" is creating sustainable systems that do not need constant (or any) ferts and pesticides. Your "solution" is nothing more than a band-aid.

My "solution" per... http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2623056&postcount=68

Then I would say less NPK is your first step. Yes grass needs input though, so close the system... get all your customers to leave the clippings... adjust the water to not overwater...

...

But the main point is, if you reduce loss of nutrients as much as possible, then you can use less inputs. Both organic practices and products work to help reduce nutrient loss thus adding NPK becomes less important.

I get the idea... are you throwing me in a catergory just because I spoke up against a lie? C'mon man, open your eyes.

look man, lawns exists... and people want them green and weed free. An educated professional is a better option than leaving it to the ignorant homeowner. I know you hate turf, but buddy, turf is here and it isn't going away any time soon.

I'm done with this thread... finally

Kiril
11-29-2008, 02:56 PM
I get the idea... are you throwing me in a catergory just because I spoke up against a lie? C'mon man, open your eyes.

Yes I am because you continue to misinterpret the whole "salts" issue. If anyone made the silly statement that salts (at any concentration) kill microbes, I would be all over them like I was with Rod and his N post.

When people talk about salts killing soil microbes, they should make it clear it is high concentrations of salts. Fact of the matter is JD, you ignore this distinction (even when specifically mentioned) in your campaign against what you perceive as a "lie".

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-29-2008, 03:05 PM
I'm done with this thread... finally


liar liar.......pants on fire!
:blob2:

rcreech
11-29-2008, 06:21 PM
Kiril,

I am not going to lower myself to your tactics anymore and defend myself. I posted originally and you have made it out to be something it is not (which I was prepared for BTW).

You are really starting to bore me with your crap, plus I hate arguing!

You know what they say..."Don't argue with idiots..they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". That is the case here!

I have made myself clear...and you have chosen not to see it that way.

Thanks,
RC

NattyLawn
11-29-2008, 08:26 PM
Kiril,

I am not going to lower myself to your tactics anymore and defend myself. I posted originally and you have made it out to be something it is not (which I was prepared for BTW).

You are really starting to bore me with your crap, plus I hate arguing!

You know what they say..."Don't argue with idiots..they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". That is the case here!

I have made myself clear...and you have chosen not to see it that way.

Thanks,
RC

RC,

No offense, but Kiril has pretty much schooled you, and you have done nothing to prove your point. The ironic thing is you think you have. You're one of those people that will never change. Not once since I've seen you post here have you admitted you're wrong. But since you're the farmer and LCO you must be right and everyone else wrong. Then you post that you're better and smarter than the person having a discussion with you saying you're "better than that" and throw in the stupid comment above. Original.

NattyLawn
11-29-2008, 08:53 PM
[QUOTE=JDUtah;2622263]
BUT, I hate lies that mislead not only the general public, but professional’s as well... so I spoke up… salt fertilizers when used properly do not kill soil microbes. Salt fertilizers feed microbes just like they feed plants. Salt fertilizers are sometimes better and more environmentally friendly than organic nutrients.

I am STILL waiting on an article to prove me wrong… So is TimTurf, he’s been waiting for almost 5 years now… http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=57785

Or how about some SFI tests that prove that regular use of salt ferts do not wipe out microbe populations?
QUOTE]

OK JD. Next year, do bioassays on two properties. Treat one with whatever fert you want (46-0-0) and the other with organics (why don't you fire up that "brewer" you made again:rolleyes:) Do bioassays in the spring, summer and fall and see what you come up with. Maybe I should have typed salts harm soil microbes over time ten months ago, but what's the point? You get people like rcreech and Whitey4 disagreeing on whatever you type!! Did you actually read the thread or just focus on that one statement I made? The thread was about pet safe weed control! Then the "pesticides when used correctly" people chime in! But answer me this. Why do LCO's aerate? Income would probably be most answers on here. Compaction? To get oxygen to the roots? Well if synthetic fert was keeping good microbial populations, would you need to aerate?

Another issue I have is that you said I spread lies when selling a program. I don't sell fear or mis-information. We offer full organic programs as well as organic based programs and a lot are organic based with maybe a weed control or taking a chemcial pre-emergent. That being said, what is your organic program based on? You and DeepGreen had all these ideas in the spring and summer about starting compost piles, worm farms, etc and what have you really accomplished? I told DeepGreen not to rush into things and I don't think he got the results he was looking for this season. What were your results like? You two spent way too much time posting on here when most of us that actually have clients on here were working in the field, not reading wikipedia and pretending you have real life experiences. You claim to "bait" people to trap them, but really, what the **** do you really know? Go cut and paste some more from wikipedia and pretend you're smarter than you are.

I'm convinced 95% of the people on here are complete BS or fudging the truth just a little bit.

rcreech
11-29-2008, 09:08 PM
RC,

No offense, but Kiril has pretty much schooled you, and you have done nothing to prove your point. The ironic thing is you think you have. You're one of those people that will never change. Not once since I've seen you post here have you admitted you're wrong. But since you're the farmer and LCO you must be right and everyone else wrong. Then you post that you're better and smarter than the person having a discussion with you saying you're "better than that" and throw in the stupid comment above. Original.


That's funny! :laugh: You will never see me say I am better or smarter so here we go again! Adding something to my post that wasn't said! WOW!

I have definitly ate crow on here before and will in the future if needed!

What has he schooled me on? Give me your examples!

You say I have done nothing to prove my point???? What point are you talking about? What more is there to say?

I stated that microbes/bacteria are needed to complete the N cycle! What more do I need to say or what points are there to make.


I am trying to figure out where you guys are coming from, from what I posted!

BTW...the whole ammonium nitrate idea from Kiril (which is just obsurd), it is 50% ammonia and it will convert to nitrate quicker then any other N source. Not sure why I didn't state that earlier.

So when you hear the word CONVERT...that is what I have been talking about all along! That is where the bacteria CHANGE the form or N.

NattyLawn
11-29-2008, 09:12 PM
That's funny! :laugh:

Here we go again! WOW!

I have definitly ate crow on here before and will in the future if needed!

What has he schooled me on? Give me your examples!

Nothing to prove my point???? What point are you talking about?

I stated that microbes/bacteria are needed to complete the N cycle! What more do I need to say or what points are there to make.

I am trying to figure out where you guys are coming from, from what I posted!

BTW...the whole ammonium nitrate idea from Kiril (which is just obsurd), it is 50% ammonia and it will convert to nitrate quicker then any other N source. Not sure why I didn't state that earlier.

So when you hear the word CONVERT...that is what I have been talking about all along! That is where the bacteria CHANGE the form or N.


See.....Just like I said above.:clapping:

rcreech
11-29-2008, 09:19 PM
See.....Just like I said above.:clapping:

It all makes sense now!!!!!

I see you spend a lot of time on the "organic side" of this forum and you are just "going to bat" for your organic friends!

That's cool man! I understand...because like I said...you boys aint got nut'n on me!

BTW...I asked you for some examples of how your "LITTLE ORGANIC FRIEND" schooled me, but you forgot to post them! I will look foreword to hearing what you have!

But I don't think it will be much! :laugh:

Kiril
11-30-2008, 02:44 AM
@Rod

Your post was pretty clear. What you may have "meant" to say (after consulting your "bible") and what you DID say are two different things.

I could go on and on and on and on etc as there has been tons of bad information PUKED out on here!

But here is just ONE example....

The one fellar back on about the 5th or 6th page was talking about salts from syn fert killing bacteria and organisms and stated that it only took water to make N available.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

It does take moisture...but it also takes nitorsomonas and nitrobacter (not sure of spelling) which is micro's/bac (part of the N cycle) to break down N.

I have not looked the N cycle for a coulple years, but it is how N changes forms and I can look at it real quickly and post details if needed.

It has been along time...but from my memory that is technically what N Serve and the other nitrification inhibors do...they actually inhibit or kill the bacteria to keep N from changing so it can't denitrify and go off as a gas, leach etc!

That is the SIMPLE facts that I am referring to!


I see this is another case of see what you want, not see what you read.
As I said before, if you cannot write clearly and succinctly, then perhaps you should refrain from posting.

BTW...the whole ammonium nitrate idea from Kiril (which is just obsurd), it is 50% ammonia and it will convert to nitrate quicker then any other N source. Not sure why I didn't state that earlier.

Here we go again. :nono:

The chemical formula for ammonium nitrate is NH4NO3. It dissociates into an ammonium ion ( NH4 + (aq) ) and a nitrate ion NO3 - (aq) )

Where do you see ammonia (NH3) in this reaction/formula?

Furthermore, do you really think that ammonium nitrate is the only fertilizer on the market that supplies nitrates?

Lets look at a couple fertilizers from Best.

Best Nitra King (http://techsheets.simplot.com/Best/74081_nitraking1944.pdf) - 4% nitrate

Best NitreX (http://techsheets.simplot.com/Best/765512_nitrex1935.pdf) - 6.8% nitrate

Rod, you should probably let this one go because you are only digging that hole deeper.

rcreech
11-30-2008, 06:26 AM
@Rod

Your post was pretty clear. What you may have "meant" to say (after consulting your "bible") and what you DID say are two different things.




I see this is another case of see what you want, not see what you read.
As I said before, if you cannot write clearly and succinctly, then perhaps you should refrain from posting.



Here we go again. :nono:

The chemical formula for ammonium nitrate is NH4NO3. It dissociates into an ammonium ion ( NH4 + (aq) ) and a nitrate ion NO3 - (aq) )

Where do you see ammonia (NH3) in this reaction/formula?

Furthermore, do you really think that ammonium nitrate is the only fertilizer on the market that supplies nitrates?

Lets look at a couple fertilizers from Best.

Best Nitra King (http://techsheets.simplot.com/Best/74081_nitraking1944.pdf) - 4% nitrate

Best NitreX (http://techsheets.simplot.com/Best/765512_nitrex1935.pdf) - 6.8% nitrate

Rod, you should probably let this one go because you are only digging that hole deeper.


I know we have not been talking about ammonia nitrate I typed ammonia instead on ammonuim (so I did make a mistake on this post now...you got me there :laugh:)! That is an easy one considering it's in its freak'n name for heaven sakes and I had the OSU info below right in front of me! Thanks for pointing that out and sorry for the typo!

This is straight from OSU....and this is what I am talking about!

Ammonium nitrate (34 percent) is 50 percent ammonium N and 50 percent nitrate N when added to the soil. The ammonium N quickly converts to nitrate N. For soils subject to leaching or denitrification, ammonium nitrate would not be preferred. Ammonium nitrate has no urea in it; therefore, it would be a good choice for surface application where ammonia volatilization is expected.


So you are saying that ammonium nitrate doesnt convert quickly which used nitrosomonous and nitrosbactor to go to the nitrate form?

Yes, I will play your game...they are both plant available...but it takes more then moisture to convert N!


Anyway!

I am definitly not at all digging deeper! I am just trying to defend my post as you have somehow tried to say I am saying something I am not!

I see what you have highlighted....but as Paul Harvey would say "Now for the rest of the story"...read the rest of my post! You are picking out one sentence and saying that. Read the whole thing where I specifically discuss the N cycle and talk about nitrification inhibitors.

I think that you are just trying to make it read different then I wrote it. Where do I mention forms of N or plant availability that you are "trying to correct me on"?

I have not once talked about plant available N. I am fully aware of plant available forms of N. That is actually elementry to what we are talking to here!

But I have not once touched on that. This didn't start about plant availability (broken record here).

It was about salts killing microbes and only taking water for N and that I said is not true!

rcreech
11-30-2008, 07:15 AM
Dang it!

I was going to put the urea info on my last post also (since this is what we all REALLY use) and forgot to!

Urea (46 percent) converts to nitrate N fairly quickly, usually in less than two weeks in the spring. Denitrification on wet or compacted soils can be serious. Leaching can be a problem in coarse soils. In no-till situations, surface volatilization can be a problem if the urea is not placed in contact with the soil and the weather is dry for several days after spreading.

Key word...CONVERTS!!!!! :clapping:

Kiril
11-30-2008, 10:28 AM
Yes, I will play your game...they are both plant available...but it takes more then moisture to convert N!

There you go again. Why can't you just be specific Rod? People read these forums for information, and you are NOT being clear.

If applied N, or any other source of N is in nitrate form, it is already in the plant preferred form.

There is no need for nitrate to undergo conversion to anything to be plant available.

So let me take a page from your book.

Are you suggesting that applied nitrates will somehow be converted to ammonium and back to nitrate in order to meet your "N must go through the nitrogen cycle" statements?

Maybe you don't understand what a salt is? Should we review the dissolution of salts in water?

Here let me help you. I will fix your statement, and I give you permission to use it.

Yes, I will play your game...they are both plant available...but it takes more then moisture to convert non-nitrate forms of N!

See how easy that was Rod. Three simple words and we all could have avoided witnessing your backpedaling.

As I said before, over 1 million tons of ammonium nitrate used in the U.S. last year (ref (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/Tables/Table4.xls)). This doesn't even take into account other sources of nitrates (sodium, calcium, potassium, etc....), or formulations that contain nitrate. You really can't be so naive to think that ammonium nitrate is the only fertilizer with nitrate in it? Do you need more links to products that DO contain nitrate?

BTW, when you cut and paste from a source (in your last two posts), it is expected you provide a link to the reference. At least you mentioned part of the source, which is more than I can say for most of the copy and paste warriors on this forum.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0205.html

Ammonium nitrate (34 percent) is 50 percent ammonium N and 50 percent nitrate N when added to the soil. The ammonium N quickly converts to nitrate N. For soils subject to leaching or denitrification, ammonium nitrate would not be preferred. Ammonium nitrate has no urea in it; therefore, it would be a good choice for surface application where ammonia volatilization is expected.

Urea (46 percent) converts to nitrate N fairly quickly, usually in less than two weeks in the spring. Denitrification on wet or compacted soils can be serious. Leaching can be a problem in coarse soils. In no-till situations, surface volatilization can be a problem if the urea is not placed in contact with the soil and the weather is dry for several days after spreading.


Oh and here are a couple more copy and paste quotes from your source (http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0205.html) that you missed.


The common N fertilizers are anhydrous ammonia (82% N), urea (45- 46% N), solutions (28-32% N), ammonium sulfate (21% N) and ammonium nitrate (34% N).
.
.
.

Twenty-eight to 32 percent (28-32%) N solution is usually made up of urea and ammonium nitrate. The nitrate in this product is subject to leaching and denitrification from the time it is placed in the field. The urea components are subject to the same loss mechanisms as urea.

rcreech
11-30-2008, 12:05 PM
I think I just figured something out...but tell me if I am wrong.

When I say source of N...I am talking 28%, Urea, Ammonium Nitrate etc.

You say form of N...that is ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, N2 etc.

When I say source I am not talking about the form.

Could this be where we are missing each other? Seriously...I think that may be the case here, but I could be wrong!

Again, I just kept this general.

I have yet to talk about forms of N and plant availability...because I never did in the first place.

Yes, I will TOTALLY agree with you that if a N source has a nitrate form it will not need converted to be plant available...but what is a source that is 100% nitrate? Therefore every source of N (not form of N)....will be converted


That is great that there is 1 million tons of ammonium nitrate used in the US..but how much is used on lawns, STRAIGHT? I have never heard of anyone using it...and I am not sure one can even get it as it is monitored closely!

The reason I didn't link the OSU is it was VERY LONG and one would have had to search for it.

Here is what I use: http://ohioline.osu.edu/e2567/index.html

It is an awesome fert source!

Same info you posted!

Trust me I have nothing to hide.

So...you never answered my question!

Do you agree what all N sources (not N forms) need more then moisture to be converted?

I would like to hear your answer as this was started 4 pages ago!



What is your answer?

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-30-2008, 12:50 PM
most ions salts of N are water soluble for a reason...to go directly to the plant in the form they want with out conversion .....

for nh4+ to change to no3- yes you will need bacteria and higher soil pH environment to happen.... in that sence reech your right it takes more then just h2o

growingdeeprootsorganicly
11-30-2008, 01:15 PM
no3- can turn back to nh4 but only through bacteria/fungi and then out the @ss of protozoa , nematods microarthopods

rcreech
11-30-2008, 01:30 PM
no3- can turn back to nh4 but only through bacteria/fungi and then out the @ss of protozoa , nematods microarthopods

We have just been talking about the N cycle and changes on "applied products" only...but it is really awesome once you get into the cycle and see how it contiues to convert all the way form volatilized N to the mineralization N etc.

That is where the microbes really start kicking in especially when getting into mineralization and C:N ratios etc!

This is nothing new for most of you...but the neatest thing I remember is the main reason N03- to be lost in saturated soils is there is no oxygen in the soils (due to saturation of H2O)...so the microbs "steal" the oxygen (O) off of the NO3- and that caused it to go to a gas (N2 if I remember correclty) and that causes it to denitrify and be lost! I always thought that was pretty cool!

I wasn't aware the nitrate form could revert back to an ammonuim form though! INTERESTING!

Kiril
11-30-2008, 02:12 PM
Do you agree what all N sources (not N forms) need more then moisture to be converted?

NO! Salts containing nitrate do NOT need the nitrate to be "converted" (eg. enter the nitrogen cycle) to become plant available. Dissolving a solute (salt) in a solvent (water) is not a "conversion" nor part of the nitrogen cycle .... do you think it is?

Now once a salt containing nitrate (such as ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate, etc......) has dissolved (i.e. in solution), THEN the ammonium ion will either:

1) be taken up by the plant directly
2) enter the nitrogen cycle

There are other possible fates for this ammonium ion, but for the sake of this discussion we will keep it simple.

The nitrate ion on the other hand need not enter the nitrogen cycle, it can be utilized directly by the plant.

Are we clear now Rod?

rcreech
11-30-2008, 04:09 PM
NO! Salts containing nitrate do NOT need the nitrate to be "converted" (eg. enter the nitrogen cycle) to become plant available. Dissolving a solute (salt) in a solvent (water) is not a "conversion" nor part of the nitrogen cycle .... do you think it is?

Now once a salt containing nitrate (such as ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate, etc......) has dissolved (i.e. in solution), THEN the ammonium ion will either:

1) be taken up by the plant directly
2) enter the nitrogen cycle

There are other possible fates for this ammonium ion, but for the sake of this discussion we will keep it simple.

The nitrate ion on the other hand need not enter the nitrogen cycle, it can be utilized directly by the plant.

Are we clear now Rod?

We are good!

I seen what you were saying all along...and never disagreed!

But what you were talking about (forms of N) wasn't what I was talking about (sources of N)! I was looking at it from the "big picture" of how a product works (urea or in your case 34%) in the N cycle, and you were looking at it form by form.

Actually all N enters the cycle no matter what! It may get used by the plant...and it not it will eventually change to another form. Whether the form changes from ammonium to nitrate or from nitrate to N2 gas or it leaches. Either way in my mind it enters the cycle and that is why it has no stability. It can be used...leached, denitrify or be taken up for mineralization!

I think if you were to look back (open minded now :)) you would see what I was saying.

End of the day we were saying the same thing, we were just at different elevations! I was high up looking down and you were looking at it from the ground level.

Is that a fair assessment?

rcreech
12-01-2008, 10:13 AM
Kiril,


I love being on LawnSite because even though we may disagree or bicker...at the end of the day it makes me dig, and get my materials out and review them (which I just don't do on my own as I should).

After posting last night I really got to thinking about the N cycle and I think once a product is applied...it enters the cycle very quickly. The ammonium form doesn't sit and wait for the plant! It is going to change very quickly (which I know you already know).

Looking at ammonium nitrate for example as you have been discussing....the ammonium and nitrate may be both plant available, but much of the ammonium will covert to nitrate very quickly, or the nitrate may leach or be converted to gas, or it may be taken up by micro organims before the plant even gets it! Now as far as urea goes...it has to pretty much enter the cycle and get "into solution" before anything can happen! The N cycle is big for it to work effectively!

This is way deeper then we all intended to go as far as "Does it only take water for N"...but it is an awesome topic!

So technially with the N cycle...the N is just "out there in the cycle" to see what happens to it.

I now see what GrowingDeepRoots was saying about going from nitrate back to the ammomia or ammonium form. He was talking even farther into the cycle then we were.


Thanks for the challange Kiril as I think this was a great time for me to touch up on a lot of information! Hope you got the same from it!

Kiril
12-01-2008, 11:09 AM
After posting last night I really got to thinking about the N cycle and I think once a product is applied...it enters the cycle very quickly. The ammonium form doesn't sit and wait for the plant! It is going to change very quickly (which I know you already know).

I would generally agree with that. The speed at which it does enter the cycle depends on many factors. You also have to consider the main mechanisms by which plants acquire the majority of their nutrients (i.e. mass flow, diffusion) along with soil structure, biological activity, water status, soil chemistry, environmental conditions, etc.... In short, biological systems are complex.

Thanks for the challange Kiril as I think this was a great time for me to touch up on a lot of information! Hope you got the same from it!

Yes. Whenever I get involved in any technical discussion, I always make sure I have at least 3 credible sources to back my information. This "policy" of mine not only lends to good review, but allows me to keep up on the science and add to my rather large PDF archive.

rcreech
12-01-2008, 02:16 PM
I would generally agree with that. The speed at which it does enter the cycle depends on many factors. You also have to consider the main mechanisms by which plants acquire the majority of their nutrients (i.e. mass flow, diffusion) along with soil structure, biological activity, water status, soil chemistry, environmental conditions, etc.... In short, biological systems are complex.

VERY GOOD POINTS!!!!!!!!



Yes. Whenever I get involved in any technical discussion, I always make sure I have at least 3 credible sources to back my information. This "policy" of mine not only lends to good review, but allows me to keep up on the science and add to my rather large PDF archive.

I usually don't use 3 sources per say, but that isn't a bad idea! I use my notes from college and a lot of info that I have gained over the last 10 years, but I depend on Ohio State and Purdue also! They do a great job for us over here!

If you talk to NattyLawn...tell him that the ol' farm boy is done with get'n "schooled" on this one! :laugh:

That was hilarious!

Thanks Kiril,

Rodney Creech

Real Green
12-02-2008, 03:48 PM
Alright... now let's get back to being PET SAFE!



Thanks for the call buddy, this was worth the last hour I spent reading it!

ICT Bill
12-02-2008, 10:10 PM
Looking at ammonium nitrate for example as you have been discussing....the ammonium and nitrate may be both plant available, but much of the ammonium will covert to nitrate very quickly, or the nitrate may leach or be converted to gas, or it may be taken up by micro organims before the plant even gets it! Now as far as urea goes...it has to pretty much enter the cycle and get "into solution" before anything can happen! The N cycle is big for it to work effectively!

I am told, and have researched, but certainly don't have 3 cited document sources for back up, that only 38% on average of the Nitrogen applied actually reaches the area of the root to be utilized by the plant

It is a great topic and it is great fun to see all of the different angles, I know I learn a bunch. sometimes we have to read between the lines, but I still learn a bunch on threads like this

Oh yeah pet safe..... what kind of pet was it????

rcreech
12-03-2008, 04:02 PM
I am told, and have researched, but certainly don't have 3 cited document sources for back up, that only 38% on average of the Nitrogen applied actually reaches the area of the root to be utilized by the plant

It is a great topic and it is great fun to see all of the different angles, I know I learn a bunch. sometimes we have to read between the lines, but I still learn a bunch on threads like this

Oh yeah pet safe..... what kind of pet was it????

I have never heard anyone say how much N actually gets used by the plant (compared to what was applied)...as I would think that would be very hard to figure out. Because in the cycle...their is a constant "recycling".

If one is using SCU or slow release N, I bet it is the plant use it much better.

There are many variables that can affect how much gets used by the plant!
-Form of N used
-Time of year
-Weather (temp and rainfall etc)
-Type of grass, thickness of grass
-And probably many more that I am not thinking of

From what you are saying then..if one is applying 1# of N/k....the lawn only used .38#?

That sounds a little low to me..but I havn't done any checking.

I would think it would be much better then that...especially when using a slow release N as all of us do!

I would love to see some data on this is someone can find it. I will do some checking on this also if time allows.

humble1
11-08-2010, 09:01 AM
I have never heard anyone say how much N actually gets used by the plant (compared to what was applied)...as I would think that would be very hard to figure out. Because in the cycle...their is a constant "recycling".

If one is using SCU or slow release N, I bet it is the plant use it much better.

There are many variables that can affect how much gets used by the plant!
-Form of N used
-Time of year
-Weather (temp and rainfall etc)
-Type of grass, thickness of grass
-And probably many more that I am not thinking of

From what you are saying then..if one is applying 1# of N/k....the lawn only used .38#?

That sounds a little low to me..but I havn't done any checking.

I would think it would be much better then that...especially when using a slow release N as all of us do!

I would love to see some data on this is someone can find it. I will do some checking on this also if time allows.

Check some of frank rossi(sp) work he is a professor at cornell who has measured N uptake in the plant as well as p and k
Posted via Mobile Device