PDA

View Full Version : HAHAHAHAHA!!! Salts DON'T kill microbes like everyone so easily believes.


JDUtah
08-18-2008, 11:39 PM
Seriously guys, how can you believe that bunch of crap? Before I expand, please help me...

Where in the world did you learn that? So far most everyone that I hear saying that salts in fertilizers kill microbes sources their info from Dr. Ingham. The only other source I have noted is form our friend Stewards of the Land, who made that claim but most his learning is from Dr Melendrez.

So I ask again, where did you learn salts kill microbes?

treegal1
08-19-2008, 02:40 AM
after a hurricane like we are getting now its called a sand dune??? every time we see salt in the soil its an up hill battle!!!! maybe Tim or some one else will chime, maybe its when the chlorine comes un glued from the sodium????

Kiril
08-19-2008, 03:26 AM
"Salts" don't kill microbes. Microbes and plants need salts.
What kills microbes and plants are high concentrations of salts.

treegal1
08-19-2008, 03:31 AM
any weight to the theory that the Cl Na split at all??? or is this just a fairy tail????

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 03:37 AM
"Salts" don't kill microbes. Microbes and plants need salts.
What kills microbes and plants are high concentrations of salts.

Thanks Kiril, that's my understanding. Question for you... Can an organic landscape (nutrient cycling, no/low input) ever produce an overabundance of the salts?

Ummm, irrigation and other factors... I answered my own question.

Another question, does the high concentration basically lock up the soil moisture, and the plants and microbes basically dehydrate?

treegal1
08-19-2008, 03:37 AM
http://www.ucam.ac.ma/gire3d/Data_Base_Donnees/Full_pappers_PDF/Theme3/Session3/ahmed_chehbouni_full_paper.pdf

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 03:41 AM
The "Salts" we are talking about are not Sodium Chloride, they are the plant available inorganic nutrients that plants need. The ones that microbes "make" that the plant absorbs, the ones that are found in synthetic fertilizers like Ammonium Sulphate, Ammonium Nitrate, or Potasium Phosphate. The ones that "are in" (really just "are") the fertilizers. NaCl isn't in any fertilizers I know of, but no oceans by me and NaCl isn't much of a problem here, Out there in Florida on the other hand, you gotta know your NaCl stuff.

Kiril
08-19-2008, 09:37 AM
Helping you help yourself. Sorry for the Wiki links, I'm short on time and feeling lazy. Everything you need to answer your questions can be found in the following (directly or with a little brain power)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_potential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(chemistry)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(molecule)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_salination

Tim Wilson
08-19-2008, 10:12 AM
This is usually a factor of extended use which correlates to Kiril's statement of overuse.

I will probably find time in the future to post some microbial video on my website illustrating this.

In the interim, you could likely illustrate this to yourself on a macro level if you were to find two similar grass/hay fields in the same region; one which has been grown chemically over the years; the other grown naturally. Provided they have similar soil types and moisture, it is most likely that when you dig into the chemical field, you will find much MUCH lower numbers of 'bugs' like rollie pollies, mites, rove beetles, other types of beetles, springtails, worms, etc, etc. These numbers, directly correlate to the numbers of microbes in the soil.

My neighbor's fields compared to our's is a classic example of the outward effects of using chemicals. He has used chemicals for years while we have used none. Last year he did not get around to applying chemicals and his hay did not grow. There was, apparently, insufficient microbial life to sustain the growth naturally. Ours grew with no fertilizers, as usual.

I do not use Elaine Ingham as a reference.

David, Do you need to use such an abrasive and immature tone?

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 10:56 AM
Thank you Kiril, I'lll review. No problem with it being Wikki.

Tim, sorry for the tone. I'm just sick of reading everywhere that synthetic fertilizers polute soil and kill microbes (when used respoonsibly they don't IMO... even over time). I made some awesome connections last night and my zeal might have come out a little wrong.

I partly use that tone to stirr emotion and discussion. It is a public forum and unfortunately controversy is what gets people attention. Especially controversy that challenges what people currently believe.

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 12:27 PM
Kiril,

I understhood the whole salts are neutral molecules composed of bonded cations and anions, but in review I realized these separate when in the water solution. Is that always the case? When salts are disolved, their respective ions are freely suspended in the solution?

If it is, it would suggest plants can be even more selective about the nutrients they absorb. And how inbalanced fertilizing CAN cause damaging nutrient inbalances? If that's true, it would be all the more reason to establish the nutrient cycle... interesting.

I think I get the high salt concentration issue better... it can even cause water to be taken out of plant and animal cells, not just keep them from absorbing it?

Kiril
08-19-2008, 12:41 PM
Some more Wiki for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_polarity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_%28chemistry%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_equilibrium


Sorry about the salt and water links, the server butchered them.
Here they are again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%28chemistry%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28molecule%29

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-19-2008, 02:32 PM
inorganic SALT based ferts do kill and reduce micro's#, ive seen it with my own two eyes under the scope. but with that being said that doesn't mean if you apply them you kill all organisms. it means that you create condions that are not as favorable to them.
I've tested soils(turf soils) low OM grass clippings removed synthetic ferts only for years and there are still decent populations of microorganisms but soils with higher OM and soils that are not synthetically fertilizer have higher #'s, it's a balance issue.
salts do harm it's a fact, but doesn't mean you can't use them. plants need those soluble nutrients with out proper nutrient cycling going on in the soil.
trick is to build the soil to a point that those synthetic aren't needed any more. takes time with most poor soils. try to use less ferts and that are lower on the salt index while maintaining growth while soil builds

most in organics will say just stop the synthetic from the start but if you are in a lawn care biz professionally and soils are poor and micro's # are few and budgets are small, how are you going to keep the grass growing while you increase OM and micro's numbers? do what you have to do to keep the lawn growing and work on the rest in the mean time.

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 06:57 PM
Hmmm, not buying in completely DeepRoots...

But it is interesting you say you have seen it under the microscope... do you mind explaining what you tested and how? You also say "salts do harm it's a fact". Are you suggesting if I put down any amount of urea on my lawn the microbes will be negatively affected? Where did you get that salts do harm it's a fact? Better wording might be to say "excessive salts harm".

Answer me this if you would...

Why do microbes make the inorganic ion salts that plants need in the first place?

If you answer that you might be more careful with your wording about salts. That is my point.

I am wokring on an article about it (well a series of 3 maybe 4 articles). I prolly can't post my site on this one... but if you (or anyone) want to read it, pm me and I'll send you a link when I get it up.

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 10:05 PM
Some more Wiki for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_bond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_polarity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_%28chemistry%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_equilibrium


Sorry about the salt and water links, the server butchered them.
Here they are again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_%28chemistry%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28molecule%29

Thanks again Kiril. Some of that is going to take a few readings to digest. Lots of new words. I think I'm still on track?

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-19-2008, 10:13 PM
jd,
your right, better wording would have been excessive salts harm.
my testing and observations are solly based on CT and adding synthetic based ferts at different concentrations, i need to do more testing to determine at what concentrations ppm are really denotational and what are safe. and what type of different fertilizer elements make up's(ie ammonium nitrate,urea,ammonium sulfate,sodium nitrate ete ete. cause the most damage.next i hope to start testing soils, that all takes lots lots of time.
I'm fairly new to the world of organic's my self and feel that it will take me many many years more to realize the real facts when it comes to these questions.

when it comes to understanding these things i think nothing is better then to view and realize the truth your self by experimentation and viewing with a scope./
jd, get a scope and help us figure the truth out ok?

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 10:20 PM
OK, I'm going to save the main points for my site but here are some thinking tips...

Why do microbes break down organic matter into inorganic ions/nutrients?

Ever had strep throat? Then you had a throat culture? What did the doctor use to grow the bacteria? Did the Petri dish contain gel, carbohydrates, and inorganic salts? Why are the salts used in a Petri dish if they kill microbes?

Or how about a study form Nigeria? They are trying to find a way to take a waste stream from producing cormel flour and convert it into a protein source. They are trying to do this by breeding fungi A. oryzae in the waste and letting it synthesize the proteins.

What happened when they added these supposed bad salts to the sample?

"Protein content of substrate enriched with the mutant fungal strain was higher than that enriched with the wild strain. Addition of (NH4)2SO4, NH4NO3, NH4Cl, and urea to Xanthosoma solid process waste increased the growth rate of mutant, with the highest increase observed with urea. Medium amended with urea also had the highest protein level of 26.23% strain compared to a protein yield of 17.41% obtained in the control with no added nitrogen."
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?jb03046

Why did adding these salts increase the fungal population if it harms the fungi?

Once again, why do the microbes break complex organic matter down into the inorganic ions in the first place? Perhaps plants are not the only ones that need them broken down before they can use them to build things? ding?

Edit: Deeproots, I am for sure on the same quest, and the scope is in the scope of things... bahaha, sorry.

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-19-2008, 10:41 PM
microbes are found on the bottom of the ocean surviving on sulfur only, there are many different microbes that thrive on many different things. we all know that

jd lets start here, get a scope and lets do some testing?

As far as synthetic ferts compared to microbial made goes, to me it's the inert substances and impurity's that can have possible negative affects as compared to pure compounds derived from micro's
hope that makes some sense?

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 11:00 PM
microbes are found on the bottom of the ocean surviving on sulfur only

I doubt that the only element that makes that microbe is sulfur. I'm sure it needs carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen. All living organisms need and make protiens. Protiens are made up of amino acids, amino acids have more in them than just sulfur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

Anyways, I'll work on getting a microscope, and a CT system, and a DO meter, and a pH meter. But in the meantime I'm going to keep studying.

Kiril
08-19-2008, 11:49 PM
I think the point is ..... microbes can and do live in very harsh environments ..... including those with high salts.

JDUtah
08-19-2008, 11:54 PM
:wall ... :laugh:

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-20-2008, 01:07 AM
my point was that bacteria could use sulfur (hydrogen sulfide) as their main source for synthesis and that hydrogen sulfide is one of the most toxic things to organisms on earth
that commit was in response to your statement about taking throat cultures and growing them out on mediums substances in question in this tread to be harmful to micro organisms, we are discussing the harm from salt based synthetic ferts to SOIL organisms right?

the question needs to be the inpact to these organisms and what SOIL organisms can and can not tolerate high salts or other impurities in the soil, and if some can tolerate high levels do they take over in numbers and thrive and others go dormant or die till level become conducive for them? if others go dormant or die what effect on nutrient cycling and soil building is the result? what about the other higher order soil fauna? are they affected at all? some of them? none of them? so many questions that need difinative answers.....now get to work jd...jk..:)

JDUtah
08-20-2008, 02:51 PM
Tim, Kiril, or someone...

Do you know of anyone that ever used agar plates with the specific salts dissolved in the liquid agar to see if soil microbes actually do prefer synthetic fertilizers?

---- on a side thought -----

Do you think agar plates could be an easy alternative for Organic LCO's to test soil microbe diversity? (If you could develope a plate with the right food input, you could help save them time and energy spent preparing samples and learning how to read them. Seems more field applicable as they would just sample and check it the next day?)

--- also ---

Maybe use a plate to test the effects of Bills NPP. Have one group with the NPP in it and another without. Take a grass blade infected with blight or something and swab it on plates from both groups... see if the NPP group does slow or stop the specific disease you are dealing with?

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-20-2008, 06:44 PM
im sure tim could explain it way better then i ever could to you but im surprised the you haven't stumbled upon this info in your Internet research on soil microbes.

of all the soil microbes lets just talk about soil bacteria.
supposedly there are #'s in the many thousands apon thousands of different bacteria species in soil, and out of those many thousands only 1-10th to 1-100 of 1% are known or named.
now plate cultures food substrate only selects for certain bacteria that are known to grow on that medium and in those particular conditions, only growing out certain bacteria.
if you took a soil sample and grew it out on a particular substance on a plate, every organism present in the soil sample would not grow out to determine complete diversity in that sample. from what i understand plat culturing it is only usefully for growing out known species on a medium known to grow them out. only selecting a fraction of what was really there.
if you took all the bacterial organisums in soil
do you think a plate culture could grow them all out to determine a true diversity in soil organisms?
since only lets say 1-10th of 1% of all soil organisms are known, wouldn't just viewing a sample under a scope be better at determining soil diversity? then plating out only for certain ones?
but what do i know? i still learning too

hotshot4819
08-20-2008, 07:16 PM
whats wrong with Dr Melendrez? he is a very inteligent man, knows more then most of us on this site put together.
Also, his product soil secrets is unreal, pricey, but really does work, ive had huge success here in nh with it.

JDUtah
08-20-2008, 07:40 PM
Deep roots. ya I started to wonder that shortly after I asked. I barely thought of plate cultures yesterday and haven't studied up on them much... Tim talks about why they might not be such a good thing on his site... more about them missing what is actually(currently) going on in the CT. Sounds like he had a fun visit to the US.

Hotshot, I haven't been able to come across many of his articles that do not heavily market his products... I tend to question articles that market too heavily. (realize most of his stuff I read was directly form his site)

hotshot4819
08-20-2008, 08:12 PM
well, you could always take a differint aproach and do some research on him before bashing him, or his product.

I would also be willing to bet, if you used his product , you would be more then impressed with the results.

I am in the situation where i can sell the product ( even at the price) because we have very high clientel around the lakes, also obeys all the lake restrictions with fertilizer.
however, in the places where isnt so "high" end, i do have trouble selling.

JDUtah
08-20-2008, 09:51 PM
Where did I bash him? And how can I bash his product if I make no mention of it?

The only thing I am bashing is the mindset that inorganic mineral nutrients harm microbes...

lilmarvin4064
08-20-2008, 11:45 PM
..., i need to do more testing to determine at what concentrations ppm are really denotational and what are safe. and what type of different fertilizer elements make up's(ie ammonium nitrate,urea,ammonium sulfate,sodium nitrate ete ete. cause the most damage.next i hope to start testing soils, that all takes lots lots of time...

sodium nitrate, whaaaa? dude. ammonium nitrate? I'd be surprised if more 5% of the total N applied to every lawn was from AmN. Start with urea, then ammonium sulfate, muriate of potash, sulfate of potash, diammonium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate. These are the big ones. Next test potassium nitrate, urea-triazone, monopotassium phosphate. potassium acetate, etc.........

oh, also urea formaldehyde and methylene urea (which with there shouldn't be any problems :))

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-21-2008, 04:28 AM
sodium nitrate, whaaaa? dude. ammonium nitrate? I'd be surprised if more 5% of the total N applied to every lawn was from AmN. Start with urea, then ammonium sulfate, muriate of potash, sulfate of potash, diammonium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate. These are the big ones. Next test potassium nitrate, urea-triazone, monopotassium phosphate. potassium acetate, etc.........

oh, also urea formaldehyde and methylene urea (which with there shouldn't be any problems :))
how do you know that? urea needs some form of microbial activity to become available but what are the overall effects to soil health from urea methylene/formaldehyde?

i mention sodium nitrate only because it comes from a natural mined deposit
and my only point was this............ete.....ete!

though this is a lawn site my interest go beyond just lawn care and the common ferts used in the care of them

Tim Wilson
08-21-2008, 10:05 AM
im sure tim could explain it way better then i ever could to you

You are doing well enough.

Growing cultures in specific agar plates has its uses but is profoundly limited. Testing in the field or back home is what I'm trying to promote but not with plating in most cases. One can take a sample of soil, mix it with water and observe the presently active microbes. If you then add some feedstock to your sample (like a plate culture) and observe it over hours to days, you may observe some of the dormant microbes coming to life and can therefore roughly gauge the potential of the soil. And so on.

I do plan to record something similar concerning chemical fertilizers in the future.

Tim

JDUtah
08-21-2008, 11:24 AM
Thank you Tim.

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 11:36 AM
About testing chemical fertilizers with a CT.... lets work on some relatively appropriate numbers before we do the test... (I will get my scope eventually guys, I promise)

A typical fertilizer lasts 4-6 weeks before completely dissolved/used/lost... so let's say 4 weeks...

1 lb of nitrogen 'salt' is applied per 1,000 sqft per application. (5 apps per year, 6 weeks apart out here. I'm being generous with the N calculation)

Let's say you water 1" a week (popular recommendation).

That's 626.119 gallons of water per week, per 1,000 sqft.

626.119 gallons * 4 weeks = 2,504.5 total gallons of water.

2,504.5 gallons of 'pure' water at room temperature roughly weighs 20,862 lbs.

1 lb nitrogen / 20,862 lbs * 100 = .004%

So to do a fair test in your CT, you may only apply .004% Nitrogen by weight of water.

Too much of anything and you can harm the microbes... Why do you need to aerate?

I bet the microbes will grow better, not worse, if you use rough 'field applicable' numbers.

And someday I'll see it for myself. :)

treegal1
08-23-2008, 11:55 AM
maybe you should have uped the dose, LOLOL wow what spured this on and............. Tims got to see this,LOLOL:laugh::laugh::confused:

treegal1
08-23-2008, 11:57 AM
is the N thats still alive counted?????:dizzy::dizzy:

Kiril
08-23-2008, 11:58 AM
Not quite sure I agree with your assessment JD, unless your injecting the fert into your irrigation water.

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:03 PM
lol... dang those doctors... must be shooting in the dark... :)

my mind doesn't stop. I am going to test it myself. I want my tests to mimic the field as much as possible. So brain + field = test tolerance call-outs.

The numbers surprised me... I wonder if there even will be a difference in microbial biomass with a ratio like that. But still think it will be increased.

Lol yup, I'm sure I'm getting some tomatoes from more than one person.. might be a couple days so they go rotten first. :laugh:

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:05 PM
Hmmm, what's your take kiril?

Even ammonium sulfate granules are visible for a few weeks... can be volatilizing etc.. so I see it as even less N reaching soil microbes then that, but I wanted to be generous.

But again. Opinions?

Kiril
08-23-2008, 12:15 PM
granules

Consider .........

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:40 PM
I C. OK so maybe my fertilizer practices are more appropriate for soil life.... Heh, I even use poly coated, sulfur coated, and slow the number down more.

But say 1" of water...
626 gallons = 5,216 lbs
1 lb N / 5,216 * 100 = .019% N by weight.

Or even 1/4" of water
1 lb N / 1,304 = .07% N by weight

Hmm maybe test each one...

Kiril
08-23-2008, 12:42 PM
Wrong path .... backtrack and try the next one.

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:43 PM
hmmmmmm... k

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:45 PM
A high concentration of salt localized around each granule?

Kiril
08-23-2008, 12:45 PM
consider what the granule represents.

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:50 PM
:cry: Synthetic fert?

I might need more time/help on this one.

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 12:53 PM
Hey on a side note (thinking compost over synthetics) I assume you read my pH deal. I assume I know why you didn't say anything as well... but question.. would you suggest that generally when I make compost out here (alkaline soils) I add gypsum to the compost and try to make the compost more acidic.. or is that overkill in your eyes as well?

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 01:04 PM
is the N thats still alive counted?????:dizzy::dizzy:

I think most tests only measure avaiable inorganic mineral N? (Nitrate or Ammonium depending on the test)?

IMO the microbes will absorb the mineral N and use it to build/reproduce. So during a salt CT the N concentartion would go down because it is being used (locked up) by the living herd.

Kiril... I still don't get where your taking that...

Kiril
08-23-2008, 04:49 PM
Think point source

JDUtah
08-23-2008, 04:54 PM
I'm gonna go hike an island in the Great Salt Lake, so I'll be back later.

But in the meantime a friend guided me to this.

http://bexar-tx.tamu.edu/HomeHort/F1Column/2005%20Articles/NOV6.htm

Guys, in landscape maintenance there is only ONE reason for a CT application.. and it isn't to repopulate soil microbes that were "killed by mineral ferts or 'cides".

JDUtah
08-24-2008, 09:23 PM
Kiril, point source? Like the area immedietely around the granule? The granules don't dissolve with the first 1/8" irrigation...

JDUtah
08-24-2008, 09:30 PM
If salts killed microbes (including fungi) why aren't fertilizers used as fungicides? Why do fertilizers usually PROMOTE diseases (which are microbes!)???

Perhaps because it's food for the little guys.. not lethal toxins? Hmmm... more to come... :)

Kiril
08-24-2008, 11:05 PM
Like the area immedietely around the granule?

Yes, as in high to low concentration as you move away from the granule.

The only water that is of concern is the water that comes in contact with the granule and the immediate vicinity of that granule. If by chance (and this is a big chance) you get equal distribution of granules across the area (pfft), and your irrigation DU is perfect (will never happen), and each granule dissolves at exactly the same rate (not likely), and the nutrients from each module come in contact with the same exact amount of water (hardly), and that water moves through the soil in the exact same way (no chance), and ........................

I didn't check your numbers, but your calculations would apply more for injection systems rather than granular broadcast/drop.

Organic a go go
08-25-2008, 10:18 AM
[QUOTE=JDUtah;2482045]If salts killed microbes (including fungi) why aren't fertilizers used as fungicides? Why do fertilizers usually PROMOTE diseases (which are microbes!)???QUOTE]

Even I know the answer to that one.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 10:34 AM
Even I know the answer to that one.

Enlighten an ignorant person like myself please.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 11:04 AM
A better explanation why compost/organic is better than mineral fertilizers. I don't agree completely with it all... but it's way more tolerable than the 'fertilizers kill microbes' myth...

Will chemical fertilizers kill the soil microbes? It is possible but it shouldn’t unless it is overused. Although it is a salt, it has no sodium in it. Sodium is the culprit in almost all "salt" problems.

Then what is wrong with chemical fertilizers? Chemical fertilizers provide an "empty" type of food directly to the plants. This is like the empty calories we get from eating pure refined sugar. Microbes provide full service to the plants. They decompose dead plant and animal residues to humus; combine nitrogen and carbon to prevent nutrient loss; suppress disease; produce plant growth regulators; develop soil structure, tilth, and water penetration/retention; clean up chemical residues; shift soil pH toward neutral; retrieve nutrients from distant parts of the soil; decompose thatch; and control nitrogen supply to the plants according to need. Besides that, if a chemical fertilizer contains NPK of 10-10-10, nobody knows what the 70% of unlisted stuff is in the chemical bag that is not fertilizer.
Found here http://faq.gardenweb.com/faq/lists/organic/2004020829016580.html

Tim Wilson
08-25-2008, 12:18 PM
Enlighten an ignorant person like myself please.

Finally you have said something half intelligent. <grin>

You will note that the little article you posted virtually concurs with what I have written concerning the activity of microbes in the rhizosphere, except I was a little more detailed. What exactly does the author think he is contradicting? Also, the author has conveniently left out that studies of microbial populations should account for species and diversity.

Note, the author does not mention archaea, flagellates, ciliates, amoebae nor nematodes in the mineralization process; just bacteria and fungi. This appears typical of many studies that I've seen.

Also left out is that when using synthetics is that we may select for the wrong nutrient composition at the wrong timing for the wrong plant causing the wrong microbial population to be promoted causing disease (also unused chemical run off).

'See, that proves synthetic fertilizers don't kill microbes because they promote disease causing microbes.' Hello.

Yes, diseases are microbially related. There are microbes which are beneficial to plant growth and ones which are not. Did not Kiril and I both state at the onset of this thread that the over use of synthetics is the main killer of beneficial microbes. If not, it was assumed on my part that you knew there are non-beneficial microbes. No?

Of course, I believe the prolonged use of synthetics in supposed moderate amounts is just as detrimental. That is just my opinion based on what I have observed. I'm definitely not getting rich trying to promote the natural method of horticulture, nor am I a comfortable university professor with a comfortable tenure and big corporate money conducting studies to prove what someone wishes to see to expand the corporate waste-line. I have witnessed the results of the whole renewable forests fiasco brought about in British Columbia, arising from university studies and modern silvaculture. Ooops, now they realize they never noticed the mycorrhizal fungi and have huge tracts of reforested monocultures ravaged by pine beetles. Nature, attempting to correct our mistake.

When I manage to do my own studies or observe another's, I may say something different but for know I can only base my opinions on what I have seen on a macro level. (e.g. comparing our field with other local synthetic fed fields, my friend beating disease on his farm with CT, etc.)

There are microbes everywhere (even in diesel). Just because they are microbes, does not make them good.

Tim

Marcos
08-25-2008, 01:51 PM
I don't know HOW I could've missed this thread until now! :confused:

For several years now, we've been marketing 'bridge' organic lawn care, focusing largely on the segment of the market around here that's younger, and, by-and large, certainly more 'green oriented' than their parents were.

Initially, the whole ball of wax began 'by request' I believe around 1998, when two customers, side-by-side of each other, asked me if they could have a layer of compost put on their lawns, after they were aerated. I remember...These first two lawns I did by dump truck, pitchfork, wheelbarrow, and grass rake!:cry: I thought at the time that this was going to be an 'isolated incident', but the news traveled fast!

Soon I had these two people referring me all up and down the block. The trouble was... at that time, we weren't ready for them!
A week later...I was running around, with a big smile on my face, driving my trusty ol' Kubota, with a brand new manure spreader in tow!

That winter, and for the next few full seasons, I analyzed and agonized about going "fully organic", as some other companies around me were.
The thing that kept me from making that move 100%...and still is...is the fact that terms like 'the family budget', 'professionalism', and 'thoroughness' definitely rule the roost over things like 'environmentalism', 'green', 'eco-friendly' in the minds of most decision-makers, as it pertains to hiring and keeping a lawn care or landscaping service.

There were, at that time, and even up until NOW, a number of "100% organic" companies that were going belly-up:angel: in this general area.
I suspect, maybe, that was (and still is) because they were afraid of change, or that maybe it was against their personal ethics, or company mission statement, to "cross the line" to market bridge programs. Or maybe they were fearful to abandon the very CONCEPT that stood behind their company's (organic-minded) logo on their trucks or vans.

A couple of them survived by keeping their organic-minded name, and switching to chemicals entirely!:hammerhead:


So...it was for this reason that I built, and maintain today, a majority base of customers that is indeed, truly, organic-bridge.

There are still some, only a few (very old) customers who still are on a traditional chemical program (but we try not to add any more of these, if at all possible). On the other hand, we have a growing # of folks who insist on 100% organic.
For certain rounds I use liquid fertilizers produced locally, and delivered by the Morral Company here in Ohio. For other rounds I use a variety of locally-obtained organic products I don't want to disclose here.

And I agree 1000% that organics can and DO survive in the soil hand-in-hand with atmosphere-derived nitrogen et.at, so long as it's used in moderation.

"Everything in moderation"....just like grandma & grandpa used to say, right?!?:)

DUSTYCEDAR
08-25-2008, 02:33 PM
doing what we can for the next generation

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 03:07 PM
I've been waiting for a response from you Tim. :)

In your spirit of discrediting articles by what information they leave out I have one question for you...

Where is the proof that the responsible use of synthetic fertilizers kills soil microbes...? Oh wait.. everybody leaves that out.

Might I redirect you to a thread started 12/14/2003 (http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=57785)(almost 5 years ago)... 5 years and still no one has provided proof of this 'claim' but simply stated it is true.. then quickly diverting the attention into how complex the microbial world is.

Hours and hours spent searching for proof of the claim and NOTHING! Threads on this site and others for years asking to prove this claim.. and NOTHING... 5 minutes spent searching for evidence opposing this claim and stuff comes right into my lap.

And you wanna tell me "HELLO?" Ahem... cough... ROFL!

Shove an actual study in my face and I will gladly eat my words.. My opinion is that you will not be able to. I've tried to find proof that ferts kill microbes. I wanted it to be true. But I can't.


To go on about your response...

You talked about us picking the wrong fertilizers, at the wrong time, etc. I agree mis-use of ANYTHING (even organics) is harmful. This is a professional forum, and if a professional, certified, lawn care technician cannot responsibly handle and apply the right fertilizer at the right time HE HAS NO BUSINESS BEING IN THIS BUSINESS! (organics don't magically take away the need to deeply understand what you are doing either! If you are homeJoe that's one thing.. but if you are getting paid.. you gotta know what you are doing) So Tim... remember I'm saying the responsible use of fertilizer doesn't kill microbes.. it encourages them.

I don't know if you caught it.. but you explained the REAL REASON to us a compost tea in place of a fertilizer application.. and that is disease competition. You said "Yes, diseases are microbially related. There are microbes which are beneficial to plant growth and ones which are not." IMO, any fertilizer is FOOD (not poison) for microbes, both beneficial and disease. When you fertilize (synthetically OR organically) you give ALL (generally speaking) microbes a chance to actually have FOOD and spike in population. Sometimes it is the disease related microbes that spike the most and therefore a turf disease results. Why do I think CT helps avoid this?

In a CT you control the population spike and do it in an environment where disease microbes are not usually present. In which case you have allowed the population spike to occur without the 'disease microbes' getting the chance to do their damage. After the CT is applied, some of the nutrients are made available as they die off... When they do die off.. because you have TEMPORARILY increased beneficial microbe populations, it is more likely that a good microbe digests the dead one, further discouraging the outbreak of disease microbes. IMO this is the real and only reason to use a CT. Think of it as the beneficial microbe is replacing the granule.

Now cost of this type of fertilizer application (labor intensive) must be factored into a business plan. Also, with this understanding, you should be more attentive about the inputs (NPK, etc) into your compost tea. (this is partly how you determine what nutrients you are applying in the form of 'living granules'). This can cause a problem because maximizing tea inputs can cause heat and DO2 issues because the microbe populations spike too quickly. This approach also suggests a need for an input C:N ratio similar to that of a compost pie.. but that's for another day.

I know you are not making your living on these things Tim, but others are. I personally believe Dr. Ingham to be the main marketer of the idea.. She states it clearly in her books... On one page she suggests that one fertilizer application kills soil microbes quickly (akin to the nuclear winter term on this forum) and the next page suggests that the damage is done over time. I ask her to decide which one it is.. all at once.. or over time??? She also DOES NOT support the idea with an explanation or a pile of tested data, but quickly diverts the attention to re-introducing this 'lost' soil life. (to her credit, that is what everyone seems to be doing) It is a subtle selling tactic, and many people eat the bologna sandwiches like it's their only dinner. (I'm sure gonna get called out for this paragraph :) )


Also a tip for you Tim... you wrote...
"Did not Kiril and I both state at the onset of this thread that the over use of synthetics is the main killer of beneficial microbes." You might want to reword that.. suggesting that a product will kill 'beneficials' only is like Jerry Baker saying that "Antiseptic Mouthwash destroys disease germs" or "Cola feeds good bacteria". In light of that, Kirl made no such claim, he understands it... he also stated that microbes need the salts... which they do... just in moderation... the real question isn't are mineral salts harmful, they are nessesary, but are normal fertilizer practices applying such a high rate of salt that osmotic pressure robs microbes of necessary moisture?

I hope you guys still understand, I am committed to sustainable practices and earth friendly techniques. I am also just as committed to finding and spreading the truth about things. I don't have it together enough to say, but I am organizing a company to promote organic maintenance practices. BUT not in a religious, irrational, close minded way.

When someone argues against a claim you believe, it always seems abrasive at first.. but time will either wear the abrasion away or increase it... I think it will wear away.

Hope you have a happy day! :waving:

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 03:47 PM
Thank you for the insite Marcos.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 05:25 PM
Finally you have said something half intelligent. <grin>

I take a bow. :)

You will note that the little article you posted virtually concurs with what I have written concerning the activity of microbes in the rhizosphere, except I was a little more detailed. What exactly does the author think he is contradicting? Also, the author has conveniently left out that studies of microbial populations should account for species and diversity.

I gave your reading comprehension more credit then that!?

Umm. You did not claim fertilizer practices do not harm microbe populations... but encourage them.

Note, the author does not mention archaea, flagellates, ciliates, amoebae nor nematodes in the mineralization process; just bacteria and fungi. This appears typical of many studies that I've seen.

Ummm.. you left out plants, which can also excrete enzymes involved in the mineralization process.

Also left out is that when using synthetics is that we may select for the wrong nutrient composition at the wrong timing for the wrong plant causing the wrong microbial population to be promoted causing disease (also unused chemical run off).

This is a professional forum.. and any real professional better be able to select the right thing at the right time.

'See, that proves synthetic fertilizers don't kill microbes because they promote disease causing microbes.' Hello.

HI! How are you?

diseases are microbially related. There are microbes which are beneficial to plant growth and ones which are not. Did not Kiril and I both state at the onset of this thread that the over use of synthetics is the main killer of beneficial microbes. If not, it was assumed on my part that you knew there are non-beneficial microbes. No?

EXACTLY, good and bad. Fertilizers don't hurt good but help bad.. that's a ridiculous assumption. (see my last post)

Of course, I believe the prolonged use of synthetics in supposed moderate amounts is just as detrimental. That is just my opinion based on what I have observed.

What are your watering practices compared to your neighbors? Did he use his fertilizers responsibly? IS your turf the SAME EXACT variety of grass? What about soil type, SOM, tilth, sun exposure, wind direction/speed/consistency on a micro-scale (tree planting patterns manipulate that).. case in point.. way too many variables to blame his lawn doing more poorly this year on the fact that he has been using synthetic fertilizers.

I'm definitely not getting rich trying to promote the natural method of horticulture, nor am I a comfortable university professor with a comfortable tenure and big corporate money conducting studies to prove what someone wishes to see to expand the corporate waste-line.

You offer your dvd and plans for a CT system for free?

I have witnessed the results of the whole renewable forests fiasco brought about in British Columbia, arising from university studies and modern silvaculture. Ooops, now they realize they never noticed the mycorrhizal fungi and have huge tracts of reforested monocultures ravaged by pine beetles. Nature, attempting to correct our mistake.

Isn't learning GREAT!?

When I manage to do my own studies or observe another's, I may say something different but for know I can only base my opinions on what I have seen on a macro level. (e.g. comparing our field with other local synthetic fed fields, my friend beating disease on his farm with CT, etc.)

No mention questioning my synthetic tolerance for the test? I'm heartbroken. :)

There are microbes everywhere (even in diesel). Just because they are microbes, does not make them good.

OH SNAP... So only the bad guys use mineral nutrients to build cell structures? The good guys do what then?

Tim Wilson
08-25-2008, 05:30 PM
You talked about us picking the wrong fertilizers, at the wrong time

Not what I meant. Not what I said. Plants change their nutrient requirements throughout the day. What worker can schedule that?

Shove an actual study in my face and I will gladly eat my words.. My opinion is that you will not be able to. I've tried to find proof that ferts kill microbes. I wanted it to be true. But I can't.

All I can say is that I've observed outbreaks of powdery mildew (fungi unchecked) seemingly directly triggered by phosphorus applications but completely non-present in the organic vineyard next door, etcetera, etcetera.


I don't know if you caught it.. but you explained the REAL REASON to us a compost tea in place of a fertilizer application.. and that is disease competition.

I and others successfully use ONLY CT as plant/soil amendments. Somewhere on this forum and maybe on my website is the story of my friend's farm and his successful use of CT to the point of using nothing but water.



Not over an extended period. You are young. You will learn once you've been around long enough to see a thing or two.

You might want to reword that.

Yup...you are correct.

Why do I think CT helps avoid this?


I've got some microbes that eat PM. It is not just a case of displacement (I think) as many hypothesize.

When someone argues against a claim you believe, it always seems abrasive at first.. but time will either wear the abrasion away or increase it... I think it will wear away Huh?

Tim Wilson
08-25-2008, 05:40 PM
he also stated that microbes need the salts

Did you say this Kiril, meaning synthetic salts?

Tim Wilson
08-25-2008, 05:43 PM
[QUOTE][to blame his lawn doing more poorly this year on the fact that he has been using synthetic fertilizers.
/QUOTE]

One last thing. We don't have lawns but 40 to 200 acre fields.

I rest my case.

Tim

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 05:43 PM
I've got some microbes that eat PM. It is not just a case of displacement (I think) as many hypothesize.

Interesting... very! Hope you get that protected... and figure a way to breed it.. that's potential for boocko's of bucko's!

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 05:46 PM
Did you say this Kiril, meaning synthetic salts?

Tim,

Whether an enzyme made nitrogen bond to hydrogen or heat and pressure was teh catalyst... the resulting salt is the SAME EXACT THING! Synthetic salts and "organic" salts are the SAME EXACT THING... And are needed by ANY cell to build cell structure.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 05:47 PM
One last thing. We don't have lawns but 40 to 200 acre fields.

I rest my case.

Tim

Ummmmm this site is called what?

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 06:09 PM
Not over an extended period. You are young. You will learn once you've been around long enough to see a thing or two.

So food does you good for a day, but after years of eating day in and day out, food becomes poison to you? Have you stopped eating food yet?

I and others successfully use ONLY CT as plant/soil amendments. Somewhere on this forum and maybe on my website is the story of my friend's farm and his successful use of CT to the point of using nothing but water.

Water is most critical for microbial life and related nutrient cycling IMO. That's why I asked about your and your neighbors watering practices first. I agree you can get a property to a self sustaining point, but you need enough SOM, good water management, pH.. yes pH.... microbes have pH ranges too, appropriate plant variety, etc. I'm glad you and your friend were able to get there! CT is good.. I thought I made that clear.. My beef with CT's is the reason people think they need to use them. But I believe there are much faster ways to build a healthy soil. And customers want results.

Not what I meant. Not what I said. Plants change their nutrient requirements throughout the day. What worker can schedule that?

And you think microbes get a plant message and say oh... the plant needs this nutrient in this quantity for this long, then this other nutrient in this quantity for this long? Ummm... living organisms have one thing on their mind.. survival... to think deeper into that is, well... never mind.

All I can say is that I've observed outbreaks of powdery mildew (fungi unchecked) seemingly directly triggered by phosphorus applications but completely non-present in the organic vineyard next door, etcetera, etcetera.

Does the organic vineyard use CT? If so it goes with what I'm saying. How does the organic vineyard fertilize? Important question!

Also... this is my point... people push CT CT CT.. on "seemingly" arguments... GRRRRRR if I have a pet peeve that is it!

Huh?

That was my way of saying I consider you a friend and hopefully any frustration I have caused as I have challenged your belief wears away over time.

Tim Wilson
08-25-2008, 06:31 PM
Are you kidding? I have better friendships and discussions with fence posts. I'm no longer interested in wasting my time with you.

When invited to join this forum I did state that I do not have a lawn and consider them rather vain and silly. I have given away more than you'll ever know for free including plans for brewers.

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-25-2008, 06:31 PM
jd,
doc I probably knows more about soil biology then all of us combined will ever know but her word is not Gospel. to me she does get little fanatical some times but her over all knowledge is very very great. she does have invested interest saying some of the things she does so like i said her word is not Gospel

back to salts and microbes, no doubt in my mind anyway that responsible synthetic fert use does not kill ALL soil microbes and in fact it does promote some of them and in turn they feed others and on up the food chain but what ones? and yes these ferts promote rapid plant and root growth that will feed other microbe sets with root exudate's from help from these ferts. the mystery is to me anyway is what sets of organisms get stimulated and what do not? and are other sets that might not get feed or that get harmed matter to the over all health of the soil and ultimately to the plant?

since 1-10th to probably 1-1000th of 1 %or more of soil bacteria and fungi are known or named to Begin with and out of them im sure there is not alot of info on what is their true function and necessity to soil and plant health, nutrient cycling, disease suppression and so on , so to determine what microbes that might get hurt by synthetic ferts is really not possible to answer at this time any way since all are not known, no one has that info but GOD so i don't think any of us will ever truly know what the true impact is to ALL the soil organisms. what is known is that with out proper management these salts can leach from the soil and they take alot of resources to make, also using them solely does not promote good soil health. so to me that means they are not helping to promote a healthy, diverse microbial population so what does that mean? to me it means they only selectively feed certain sets of organisms.

synthetic ferts grow great plants fast but they are not good for a truly healthy soil" my opinion anyway"
to me they have their place but you can not over look feeding the soil other ORGANIC materials,foods.
so to me it's all about proper management to get great results, promote better soil and plant health and be responsible as possible to the environment at the same time.

about tea, i might be mistaken with some of my list but good tea has to have more then just biology in it.
what about enzymes,organic acids,antibiotics,vitamins/growth hormones and other compounds that might be produced?

muddstopper
08-25-2008, 06:42 PM
:

the real question isn't are mineral salts harmful, they are nessesary, but are normal fertilizer practices applying such a high rate of salt that osmotic pressure robs microbes of necessary moisture?

You have just answered you own questions.
There are many phds stateing that fertilizers have never made a soil healthier, which I totaly disagree. Will plants do good in this soil? Well do good is one thing, do better is another and do their best is entirely something else. There are many organic soil admendments on the market and just as many claims to how well they work, but when you run into a customer that didnt have the same expected great results from a particual product, the problems always seems to be that the soil isnt in proper balance. If the soil isnt in balance, how do you get it that way. The only reasonable answer is you have to apply the necessary elements that are missing. You can apply CT or organic composts for ever, but if the material you are applying doesnt contain the missing elements needed to correct the soil nutrient balance, then you are only pi&&ing in the wind. Now ask yourself what is the easiest and most economical way to apply missing soil amendments, chemical fertilizers. This doesnt mean you go out and buy a bag of 10/10/10 fertilizer and dump it on the ground and you have corrected your soils nutrient balance, even tho suddenly your grass greens up and starts growing feverishly. You have to apply the needed nutrients in the needed amounts necessary to achieve the nutrient balance you are looking for. You will never, ever, completely kill off all the benefitual or pathogen microbes in the soil, try as hard as you like. If you stop doing what you are currently doing that is causeing the harm, the microbes will recover. Yes you can temporary cause a reduction in some types of microbes and an increase in others, but you wont wipe them out. And just for info, Elaine Ingham also supports balancing out the soils nutrient levels and has made that point in some of her published writeings. Altho like Tim, I dont normaly use her as a source of my information. And also like you JD, I dont normally put much stock in the marketers published information based on their own studies. They have one goal and that is to sell their products, and you will never, ever, hear one of them tell you that their product isnt the best one available.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 06:54 PM
Are you kidding? I have better friendships and discussions with fence posts. I'm no longer interested in wasting my time with you.

When invited to join this forum I did state that I do not have a lawn and consider them rather vain and silly. I have given away more than you'll ever know for free including plans for brewers.

Good talking to you too. :laugh: You should talk to a doctor about talking to fence posts, it really isn't a healthy thing. Like it or not, I still consider you one.

treegal1
08-25-2008, 07:00 PM
Are you kidding? I have better friendships and discussions with fence posts. I'm no longer interested in wasting my time with you.

When invited to join this forum I did state that I do not have a lawn and consider them rather vain and silly. I have given away more than you'll ever know for free including plans for brewers.JD your loosing an audience, do you work for a chem co??? or sell fert?? if TIM or Dr I said to stand on my head I would !!!!

TIM, " consider them rather vain and silly".One day I will have the words and intellect to say that, for now I will just say" I think that they are stupid" (lawns)

and to every one that see's this, if I can apply ACT and get the same results from ACT that ferts give, thats how I do it, almost 150 acres and 300+ HAPPY customers, just ct and compost(more or less)

Tim Wilson
08-25-2008, 07:49 PM
doc I probably knows more about soil biology then all of us combined will ever know

Amen. Elaine has a better grasp of the large picture than most horticultural scientists I know. We have butted heads on a few details on which I have concentrated my interest but I'm on her side of the river.

When David equated the changing needs and demands nutritionally of a plant to human thought with his cutsie; well never mind, he clearly illustrated his short comings in accepting the natural pattern of nutrient cycling. Does he think it so unimaginable when his organs (blood sugar) put his body into gear looking for a certain food type when a certain molecular bond sugar or protein is needed within the hour. I hope he considers himself lucky Monsanto is not at the head of the soup line and saying No Peanut Butter For You Today! {soup Nazi} We have ascertained with our examination of the air you breathe that you require this special coolaid which happens to be made from the effluent created from this stuff we make for lubricating bearings but that's okay cause here's this university study from a group of guys on our payroll. Eat It! Damn You!

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 07:52 PM
Tree,

I knew I'de catch slag for throwing Dr I's name out there.. and for arguing with Tim...

Not selling anything.. just trying to find the truth.. And like I said in the nitogen thread.. ironically also during a debate with Tim.. I do not care who the person saying it is.. it's gotta make sense.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 08:08 PM
Amen. Elaine has a better grasp of the large picture than most horticultural scientists I know. We have butted heads on a few details on which I have concentrated my interest but I'm on her side of the river.

When David equated the changing needs and demands nutritionally of a plant to human thought with his cutsie; well never mind, he clearly illustrated his short comings in accepting the natural pattern of nutrient cycling. Does he think it so unimaginable when his organs (blood sugar) put his body into gear looking for a certain food type when a certain molecular bond sugar or protein is needed within the hour. I hope he considers himself lucky Monsanto is not at the head of the soup line and saying No Peanut Butter For You Today! {soup Nazi} We have ascertained with our examination of the air you breathe that you require this special coolaid which happens to be made from the effluent created from this stuff we make for lubricating bearings but that's okay cause here's this university study from a group of guys on our payroll. Eat It! Damn You!


So we both suggest a hint of conspiracy theory... just in different things/people. :drinkup:

I said I'de eat my words when someone provided evidence that the responsible use of synthetic fertilizers harmed soil microbes... maybe a test measuring microbial biomass? Maybe I have enraged you enough to find one? Good luck! I've looked. I'm still waiting.

Anyways.. just like I did in the nitrogen thread... I will walk away and not respond further in this argument.. it has become unproductive and silly.

phasthound
08-25-2008, 08:50 PM
I said I'de eat my words when someone provided evidence that the responsible use of synthetic fertilizers harmed soil microbes... maybe a test measuring microbial biomass? Maybe I have enraged you enough to find one? Good luck! I've looked. I'm still waiting.

What are your thoughts about a fall application of 46-0-0?

ICT Bill
08-25-2008, 09:02 PM
JD, I love it keep it up, questioning authority is what got most of us here. Thinking out of the box is a novel and often overlooked side of life

It would be appreciated if you could give some substance rather than questioning others real and rational inputs. You are asking the questions but not giving substance behind them

Lets turn the tables .....

Prove to me that they don't, please

Kiril
08-25-2008, 09:20 PM
Did you say this Kiril, meaning synthetic salts?

I meant "mineral" salts, be they naturally or synthetically derived. An ion is an ion, doesn't really matter where it came from (with respect to most salts) IMHO. Problem with synthetic ferts is, if your not completely using (or leaching out) what you have put down, the long term result is usually a detrimental one (i.e. build up of salts).

I'll add, I expect the typical result of traditional fertilization practices, no matter how responsible, result in unused fertilizers left in the soil.

Kiril
08-25-2008, 09:28 PM
What are your thoughts about a fall application of 46-0-0?

Can I answer?

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 09:29 PM
What are your thoughts about a fall application of 46-0-0?

http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2482758&postcount=16 I've seen it work. Greener and and more healthy the next year compared to those that didn't get it.

Can I answer?

Kiril... please do!

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 09:32 PM
JD, I love it keep it up, questioning authority is what got most of us here. Thinking out of the box is a novel and often overlooked side of life

It would be appreciated if you could give some substance rather than questioning others real and rational inputs. You are asking the questions but not giving substance behind them

Lets turn the tables .....

Prove to me that they don't, please

Ironic. I feel I am the one with substance and the others aren't... I thought I gave a couple articles supporting it too... But I will compile some more stuff and link it... What exactly would you consider better substance?

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 09:36 PM
I'll add, I expect the typical result of traditional fertilization practices, no matter how responsible, result in unused fertilizers left in the soil.

Best argument against my position I've heard. Thanks.

treegal1
08-25-2008, 09:46 PM
I think that the whole point has been missed, we are trying to get away from the consumption aspect of the chemical/synthetic ferts for the simple reason that they waste!!! it take's more carbon to get to the end result, we have gone about this so many ways!! the N thread, did I poke in to many time(other than to instigate), no!!! why ??? because I get the N thing and the P thing and the K thing... as well as most of the ways that they are made mined transported!!! have I said its bad? yes !!! and why??? the cost to the earth, no not some idiot tree, hugger or any other label!! because we understand this a little better than most( god i hope so!!) its all about the "calories" for lack of a better measure, that it takes to make these and where this energy comes from!! that's my whole deal the, PETROL, whats my deal most days petrol BAD, burn veg oil, grow algae, solar, compost heat for homes, SUSTAINABLE. I dont care if its human crap that has heavy metals or salt or plutonium, just stop it with the PETROL...

JD take a good look at your site, hypocrite, that's all I got to say.................

treegal1
08-25-2008, 09:53 PM
5 step program, 1-4 build soil, step 5 defile 1-4.......

Kiril
08-25-2008, 09:57 PM
Kiril... please do!

My thoughts on using 46-0-0 as a winterizing prep can be summed up in one word ...... idiotic. :laugh:

treegal1
08-25-2008, 10:03 PM
thats.................... i am just going back to counting worms & Marilyn Manson..............maybe some rum........the wine is not doing it for me now......................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlfdoObRyoc&feature=related

Kiril
08-25-2008, 10:07 PM
I have the end all solution to this debate.

Stop using plants (eg. regionally inappropriate plants) that can't
be sustained by a sites natural soil and environmental conditions

Stop removing organic matter from sites.

Follow the above, and the whole organic vs. chemical discussion is moot, because you will need neither.
THIS is what sustainability is all about (at least to me it is).

Will this line of thinking come about in my lifetime ..... probably not,
but one can still push the idea in hopes that it might rub off on someone.

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-25-2008, 10:11 PM
jd,
do you have a new site?

can you post it?

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 10:13 PM
I think that the whole point has been missed, we are trying to get away from the consumption aspect of the chemical/synthetic ferts for the simple reason that they waste!!! it take's more carbon to get to the end result, we have gone about this so many ways!! the N thread, did I poke in to many time(other than to instigate), no!!! why ??? because I get the N thing and the P thing and the K thing... as well as most of the ways that they are made mined transported!!! have I said its bad? yes !!! and why??? the cost to the earth, no not some idiot tree, hugger or any other label!! because we understand this a little better than most( god i hope so!!) its all about the "calories" for lack of a better measure, that it takes to make these and where this energy comes from!! that's my whole deal the, PETROL, whats my deal most days petrol BAD, burn veg oil, grow algae, solar, compost heat for homes, SUSTAINABLE. I dont care if its human crap that has heavy metals or salt or plutonium, just stop it with the PETROL...

JD take a good look at your site, hypocrite, that's all I got to say.................

Tree... I have not said use chemical fertilizers once in this thread have I? (My response to Phast is really any form of N helps winterize turf)

Sorry to get you so worked up. Not a hypocrite.. just a searcher for sustainability AND truth.

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 10:15 PM
jd,
do you have a new site?

can you post it?

I do.. It is not ready to be posted as I am doing all the coding/writing myself. And as tree suggested.. I am not quite sure how I want to take it yet...

PM is on its way...

JDUtah
08-25-2008, 10:18 PM
I have the end all solution to this debate.

Stop using plants (eg. regionally inappropriate plants) that can't
be sustained by a sites natural soil and environmental conditions

Stop removing organic matter from sites.

Follow the above, and the whole organic vs. chemical discussion is moot, because you will need neither.
THIS is what sustainability is all about (at least to me it is).

Will this line of thinking come about in my lifetime ..... probably not,
but one can still push the idea in hopes that it might rub off on someone.

But I like my lawn. :cry: Very true though!

Michael J. Donovan
08-26-2008, 09:02 AM
I think it is safe to put this thread to rest now. We can leave it here for you to read through, but it is now closed