How is my timing?

[DeepGreenLawn]

OK, I started my first fertilizer this week. I know I waited a few weeks longer than everyone else but I had two reasons for this.

1. I didn't want to throw it on there like all the others before the lawn was ready for it. Therefore, how is my timing. I think I might be a little late, maybe a week or two ago would have been a good start?

2. I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN MY FERT! This one is starting to piss me off. My great cheap organic fertilizer that I found for whatever reason they want to give for the day just can't seem to find it's way to the shop. I was originally told it might take 3 days. It has almost been 2 weeks. They say it should be here today between 1 and 5. We'll see.

What are your thoughts.

[Smallaxe]

I thought Southern grasses needed a fresh supply of NPK just as they broke dormancy.
Up here I spread a little Milorganite just b4 Memorial weekend. It should becoming bioavailable anytime now. Hoped to broadcast the compost this week but the rain is backing us up.

Did your lawns loose color at all b4 you fertilized? Your lawns must have been actively growing for a couple of months now, correct?

I would personally think if the lawns maintained a descent color and vigor your timing is just fine.

[DeepGreenLawn]

some did and some didn't. Mine has great color but is not filling in as fast as it would with the N poured on like others are doing obviously. Others have deep green taller areas that look like they are using left over fert that is in the soil already. Some lawns look fine with color through out and others have the darker spots in them. I haven't had any customers complain other than a minute few that are picky picky but for the most part most lawns have been looking nice and healthy. Maybe not a deep full green like others that grow 2" in a day but a good healthy shade and growing just fine. My wife wants the poured on N look and I am trying to steer her in the direction of my lawn which is a healthy green. It still has some "dead/dormant" stalks showing that keep it from being a complete green but for the most part it looks pretty good.

I was always under the impression that you wanted the lawn to come out of dormancy kind of easy without being fed a ton of fert. That way the roots can establish and have time to get where they need to be and start taking in nutrients. Am I wrong in this?

[DeepGreenLawn]

""Fertilization
Apply 1 pound of nitrogen per thousand square feet several weeks after the grass turns green. Submit a soil sample to determine nutrient and lime requirements. In the absence of a soil test, use a complete nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium (N-P-K) turf-grade fertilizer with a 3-1-2 or 4-1-2 ratio (for example, 124-
8 or 24-6-12). Apply lime if suggested. To determine the amount of product needed to apply 1 pound of nitrogen per thousand square feet, divide 100 by the first number in the fertilizer ratio. For example, for a 16-4-8 fertilizer, divide 100 by 16. The result is 6.25 pounds of product per thousand square feet: 100/16 = 6.25.""

I took this off a website of some university. They all say to fertilize a few weeks after greenup. So I may be on the far side of this but not too far.

So I was partially right and partially wrong. You wait, but maybe not as long as I have. But, atleast I am not too far off. I saw some shedules with April and May shaded as app times so I am just past that. Again, the bermuda is doing quite well on it's own, I'm just going to give it that little extra push.

Now, fescue, lets take a look at this one...

[DeepGreenLawn]

Fescue:

Fertilize in Sept, Nov, Feb, and late April.

Zoysia:

After full green untill mid-Sept and then no more

Centipede:

During/after greenup, mid summer, NOT IN FALL

[Smallaxe]

I was always under the impression that you wanted the lawn to come out of dormancy kind of easy without being fed a ton of fert. That way the roots can establish and have time to get where they need to be and start taking in nutrients. Am I wrong in this?

That is the thinking for Northern grasses. This year our first mowing was around the first of May yet the CL type folks had their Easter app already down and ready to do the Mother's Day app.
I could visualize the grass waking up and forming thatch almost immediately and sealing off the water from reaching into the second inch down.

As far as your fescue schedules up here it can start around Mothers' Day and finish the season with a Pre-Halloween winterizer. Some University sites in the Midwest claim you can/should winterize right to Thanksgiving if the ground isn't frozen yet. However:

I put fert down in early October [synfert] and noticed a green up by Halloween. I also put down some synfert around Halloween and did not see any usage by the plant, b4 snow.

Some claim that it is still feeding the roots even though you can't notice changes in the blades. However, The grasses are shutting down as the ground chills and with 2-3 weeks for bio-availability, I am going to stick with having the winterizer being used before the end of October.

Did you ever find out the processes necessary for synferts to become bio-available to the turf? :)

[DeepGreenLawn]

I DON'T KNOW, you guys piss me off, when I think I got it down you remind me of another issue I have yet to figure out. Making more research for me. What is wrong with you people, making me do all this research like I am actually suppose to learn stuff and do this the right way. GEEZ!

[DeepGreenLawn]

I'm kidding by the way. Thanks for reminding me.

[DeepGreenLawn]

OK, I went through the whole soil food web site and looked a ton of other places that basically told me nothing.

So... basically what I have found and have learned thus far is that the roots of plants don't actually take the nitrogen up themselves. They rely on all the different microrganisms to supply the food for them in whatever way that they do it, eating the N and then forming it into something else edible for the roots. Anywho, the roots don't sit their and siphon things up they get fed. The same with water, the microorganisms break down the water, etc. and then feed it to the roots.

AM I RIGHT? Someone please confirm this, I am still new and am trying to figure this stuff out and don't want to steer anyone in the wrong direction. Makes since to me though.

[Kiril]

OK, I went through the whole soil food web site and looked a ton of other places that basically told me nothing.

So... basically what I have found and have learned thus far is that the roots of plants don't actually take the nitrogen up themselves. They rely on all the different microrganisms to supply the food for them in whatever way that they do it, eating the N and then forming it into something else edible for the roots. Anywho, the roots don't sit their and siphon things up they get fed. The same with water, the microorganisms break down the water, etc. and then feed it to the roots.

AM I RIGHT? Someone please confirm this, I am still new and am trying to figure this stuff out and don't want to steer anyone in the wrong direction. Makes since to me though.

The nutrient needs to be in plant available form. It doesn't matter how the nutrients get into that form, hence the reason why chems work.

I don't even know where you got the water idea from. :cry:

[DeepGreenLawn]

I was just reading and it was talking about the carbon and what not from the water. I guess I read to far into it. So chems are already in the "plant available form?"

[Smallaxe]

That is definately a question!!! The claim of Miracle Gro being a 'foliar' feeder as well as a water soluable NPK really raises some questions about what we 'understand' about plant life processes.

Leaves are fed by the roots, the raw materials, to make the plant food via photosynthesis. So essentially the roots are not really bringing in plant food per se they are bringing in raw material for plantfood.

So is it really true that the Miracle Gro actually supplies the raw materials for the leaves to photosynthesize?
Does water soluable npk become bio-available more quickly than granular, or organic?

That was a discussion in another forum last winter that never seemed to be resolved. I was hoping with your tenacity and research savvy you might have come across something that zeroed in on actual science.

What you found seems to confirm what I believe - That microbes predigest and break down, all sources of npk, into the simplest forms and photosynthesis rebuilds those material to suit its individual needs. But like you said, "Can someone confirm that, please?"
Thanks for the contibution :)

[DeepGreenLawn]

Here is a good site I found that really explains how foliar fertilizer works, the benefits and the chain reaction that it causes resulting in more uptake from the soil as well.

http://foliarfert.com/pages/how_does_foliar_fertiliser_work.htm

It is not too hard to read so take a look. Basically they are saying that folliar fertilizer is taken up by the vascular system, what brings in the water. This then causes a chain reaction that effects the roots which effect the microorganisms attached to the roots, and so on and so on. It makes sure to point out many times that foliar fertilizer is not to replace soil ferts it just increases the uptake.

SO, I see that as, keep the compost and OM down and use a liquid, foliar is any fertilizer in liquid form as this site states on another page, fertilizer for treatments. What do you think?

[DeepGreenLawn]

"Inorganic fertilisers are derived from non-living sources and include most of our man-made, commercial fertilisers. Man-made and natural fertilisers contain the same elements, but man-made fertilisers act more quickly ."

From the same site, different page...

OK, from what I understand as I believe Kiril was hinting towards is that Organic ferts, and the nutrients in the soil have to be broken down for the plant to use by the microorganisms. Synthetic ferts however are already in a form able to be used by the plant therefore skipping the transformation process which means faster reactions. The problem with this though is that we are adding nutrients for the plant to take up, good thing, BUT we are not replacing the nutrients taken from the soil, BAD THING. The soil becomes "dry" of all the nutrients and is then dependant on the synthetic fertilizers.

So Kiril, or anyone else, why is it that if you keep using traditional ferts does the plant suffer after a point in time even though you are still supplying the nutrients? I understand the whole there is nothing for the organisms/soil is dry, but the plant should be getting it's nutrients from the syn. fert that it needs. Or are there things that the synthetic ferts cannot supply that the soil can?

[DeepGreenLawn]

"In simple terms the vascular system runs from the roots up and from the leaves down, providing two ways for nutrients to be distributed to areas of the plant."

Apparently a lot of people feel that food is only taken in by the plants, this is not the case. I kind of knew this because of the fert that I use and have used is sometimes said to use as a foliar spray. If it's only a foliar spray, ICT said this too, then it must be able to be obsorbed by the leaf in some way. That was as far as I had taken it until this point.

[DeepGreenLawn]

Again, some of you much more knowledgeable people check my points and correct me anywhere I may be wrong. I am learning and trying to spread my new found knowledge to help others learn. The bad thing about this is I may be learning the wrong stuff, so PLEASE keep me in check.

Thanks,

[Kiril]

I posted this link before, here it is again.

Current capabilities and future needs of root water and nutrient uptake modeling (http://hopmans.lawr.ucdavis.edu/papers%2BPPT%2Bzip/rootuptake-review.pdf)

Here is another one, in a presentation format.


The Nutrition of Walnut. Plant Nutrition 101: Understanding the Principles to Optimize the Practices (http://cekings.ucdavis.edu/files/47716.pdf)

I have more if you need

[Smallaxe]

The stomata of the leaf was referenced in the context of respiration of water and air when in University. I think that stomata can pick up the N in the atmosphere, but I can't reference that anywhere in Botonical Journals either.

So essentially the stomata picking up npk 'in some way' could be snake oil or it could be real. If it is real - does leaf surface bacteria play a role? Lots to think about.

[DeepGreenLawn]

Looks like a lot of reading. I will try to take some time and look at that tonight if I can.

As of right now though, was I right or wrong with my above statements and quotes?

I think that the microorganisms on the leaves, whether they are bacteria, fungi, etc. I don't know, probably have a lot to do with it. They seem to be a key part in everything else right? That makes the most since to me, the bacteria, or whatever else, feed the stuff to the plant.

I keep wanting to think that a plant is alive, you know, it has a brain or something somewhere. How does it know what to do and when to do it? But then I got more and more into the whole microorganisms and how they feed the plant and what not and I seem to think that is what causes the plant to do what it does more and more. Basically in this context, I don't think the plant can absorb or take in nutrients/food without the help of something actually feeding it to the roots/leaves ultimately vascular system. Unless the plant can somehow constantly suck them up, but how would they do that?

What do you think?

[Smallaxe]

Thanks Kiril. This could be it. This much reading will take a while.

[DeepGreenLawn]

well, I think ICT was saying that the plant gets 60% of it's N from the air? That would explain how that is derived, but all the other nutrients I don't think can be explained in the same way.

Again the possibility of me being wrong is EXTREMELY HIGH, so take everything I say with a grain of salt and a TON more research.

Prove me wrong! I dare you.

[Kiril]

OK, from what I understand as I believe Kiril was hinting towards is that Organic ferts, and the nutrients in the soil have to be broken down for the plant to use by the microorganisms.

Basically yes, but remember not all nutrients need microbial interaction.

Synthetic ferts however are already in a form able to be used by the plant therefore skipping the transformation process which means faster reactions. The problem with this though is that we are adding nutrients for the plant to take up, good thing, BUT we are not replacing the nutrients taken from the soil, BAD THING. The soil becomes "dry" of all the nutrients and is then dependant on the synthetic fertilizers.

Kinda. I would relate what you reasoned above with systems that are asking for more from the soils then what they can provide naturally.

So Kiril, or anyone else, why is it that if you keep using traditional ferts does the plant suffer after a point in time even though you are still supplying the nutrients? I understand the whole there is nothing for the organisms/soil is dry, but the plant should be getting it's nutrients from the syn. fert that it needs. Or are there things that the synthetic ferts cannot supply that the soil can?

Soil-plant interaction is a complex field. There are many factors that promote healthy plant growth that extend beyond simple nutrient availability. The main problem with synthetics is how they effect these factors (including soil biology) over the long term.

[Kiril]

That makes the most since to me, the bacteria, or whatever else, feed the stuff to the plant.

For the most part this is not true (with the exception of symbiotic associations) if you take the statement literally.

[Kiril]

well, I think ICT was saying that the plant gets 60% of it's N from the air?

Perhaps misunderstood. This may be the case for N fixers (legumes) however I do not have a percentage of N fixed for every legume available for you.

[DeepGreenLawn]

LOL, I don't think I would understand half the list if you did. To think that I thought that I was doing so well too. I guess that I took his statement a little more literally than I should have.

He, or whoever it was, named two sources of N that was derived from outside natural properties. It then comprised of about 80% of the total N needed for the plant. Maybe he was talking about the rain bringing it down. I'm not sure, when I get some time I will try to locate the post so I won't have to keep running off of my memory that is running on fumes with everything that is going on with the business right now.

I apologize for any misleading/ misunderstandings. Just stating my findings to make sure I am hearing everything correctly.

[Kiril]

I apologize for any misleading/ misunderstandings. Just stating my findings to make sure I am hearing everything correctly.

No worries, the only stupid question is one not asked.

Perhaps you need to get a grasp on the nitrogen cycle.

Nitrogen Basics – The Nitrogen Cycle (http://nmsp.css.cornell.edu/publications/factsheets/factsheet2.pdf)

The Microbial World: The Nitrogen cycle and Nitrogen fixation (http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/microbes/nitrogen.htm)

Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Causes and Consequences (http://www.esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issue1.pdf)

Nitrogen Cycle - Iowa State University Extension Publication (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/EDC232B.pdf)

[DeepGreenLawn]

Hehe, I need to get a grasp on A LOT of things. I just am trying to figure out where to start.

[ICT Bill]

Kiril
Please be careful of all of the information done on sterile soils. I am not saying that you are not armed to the teeth with excellent info.

99 percent of the biology in the soil is not plateable on whatever agar they can be put on.

I am one that believes that the only reason nutrients are availble in the soil is because of the biology. I continue to ask the question, what did all of these plants do for 450 million years before we developed our science?

[Kiril]

Please be careful of all of the information done on sterile soils.

What information?

I am one that believes that the only reason nutrients are availble in the soil is because of the biology. I continue to ask the question, what did all of these plants do for 450 million years before we developed our science?

This has nothing to do with chem ferts, or microbes, it simply is a matter of how plants take up nutrients and in what form. To say that plants need microbes to provide ALL plant available nutrients in all soils is simply wrong. People get too caught up in a single nutrient (N or P) and forget there are other nutrients required for plant growth and that most all soils are mineral dominant, not organic.

Now this is not to say microbes don't play a part, they play a very important part of the big picture (especially in organically managed systems), but they are not the only part. I think sometimes people lose site of this here, and the whole "organic" movement becomes just as one sided and tunnel visioned as the "chem" movement of yesteryear.

Remember .... water is a universal solvent, no microbes needed. :)

[Smallaxe]

This is usually what happens when trying to find out something about a basic priciple. :)
Too many rabbit trails.

It is probably safe to say that hydroponics works with water soluable nutrients and the plant may take nutrients from the water through cell membranes in it soluable form. However, the draining period may have bacteria breaking down, digesting nutrients, dying and releasing food to the microscopic roots hairs.
So there are still 2 possiblities.

I do remember that roots produce an acid to extract minerals from mineral rock sources. It seems that synferts would be made ready in much the same way, but more research is required to have the 'basic' understanding of how the process works.
Once there is a basic foundation of understanding then all additional info can be built on that foundation. That makes it all less complex and/or confusing.

[DeepGreenLawn]

Are you saying research needs to be done on this, or that the research is out there you just have to find it.

Also, where do you guys keep pulling out all these studies? Anytime I do a search for information I get a ton of crap and nothing useful. That last post I had with excerpts from a website I just went to google and clicked on the 10th page of links hoping to skip a lot of the useless stuff of people trying to sell stuff and what not. Do you guys have a better way of researching this type of stuff?

[Stillwater]

university's.................

[Smallaxe]

I don't really know if there is a scientific body of empirical evidence that can tell us exactly what is happening at the cellular/molecular level of how the plant ingests nutrients.

I have not yet had opportunity to sift through the url posted by Kiril, so I can't say that there 'isn't' info out there. Perhaps it doesn't matter that much because if you do something and it achieves desired results, then you are the man with the magic touch. :)

If it fails - try something else regardless the botanical cellular science.

[Kiril]

There has been hordes of research done spanning many, many decades on what and how nutrients are taken up by plants and what they ultimately do with them. The literature is out there, you just need to look for it.

What I believe is still relatively new is how we can manipulate microbes to bind/release certain compounds/nutrients in a timely fashion for high production crops.

[Kiril]

A few resources that may be of interest.

http://www.botany.ubc.ca/biol351/351.htm

http://groups.ucanr.org/jacksonlab/programs.htm

The following is probably the most widely used plant physiology textbook in the world and is the one (earlier edition) that was used in the plant physiology course I took. If you want to learn about how plants function, then this is your starting point.

http://4e.plantphys.net/

[DeepGreenLawn]

Awesome, I appreciate it. I remembered the whole N thing. 60% was from the clippings from your lawn, and 20% was from the N already in the atmosphere apparently brought down with the rain, fulfilling about 80% of the total N needed for your lawn.

Or I could have it backwards but I think that sounds about right.

I know I am the man with the magic touch... I just want to actually be the man with the magic touch because I know exactly what to do and for what reasons. I am not one to just throw crap on the ground because it makes it turn green. I want to throw crap on the ground because I know it is turning it green for the right reason. Ever since I have gotten more and more into organics the more and more I want to do things the right way. If nothing else, that is what my customers deserve. And when I get it figured out, enough to have the basic principles down to actually know what to do to get the right results for the right reasons, I may even charge a little more.

"You get what you pay for." I hate that saying, it is way over used, but... it is soo true too.

[Kiril]

Do not depend on rough averages to determine N need. The amount of N available from the two sources you listed can be highly variable.

[DeepGreenLawn]

I am sure about that, I am seeing a difference between my lawns and the chem guys lawns. Mine are good and healthy with out any ferts already but they don't have that dark deep green that the lawns with N poured on has. Any organic suggestions?

[Smallaxe]

The gradual build up of nutrients in the soil and the plants' ability to get those nutrients and water, should give you your darker green color.

Since we've gotten the warm rains here my low maintenance organic lawns have the good green color as much as anything in the rest of the neighborhood. Don't forget the iron.

[DeepGreenLawn]

There's the iron again. How much do you recommend per app?

[Kiril]

Why is Georgia red clay red?

[Stillwater]

Why is Georgia red clay red?

iron oxides........................

[Smallaxe]

They put iron oxides in vitamin pills too, but it is about as useful to your body as licking the rust off an old frying pan.

That is an interesting point: Do the soil tests in GA always show high fe?
Does red sand show high fe in soil tests?

The basic idea is that building soil fertility and ammending towards a user friendly rhizoshere should get you the color that you are looking for. The dark color comes from Chlorophyll B, moreso than the amounts of Chlorophyll A in the leaf.