PDA

View Full Version : Study... NPK vs Compost vs Microbes


JDUtah
10-01-2008, 05:08 PM
I found this study (http://notulaebotanicae.ro/nbha/article/viewPDFInterstitial/261/253)to be rather interesting.

It compares crop yield with various fertilizing practices. Just NPK in soil, microbe applications, compost in soil, and compost in soil plus microbe applications.

Although the study doesn't have enough information to prove the same nutrient amounts were used for each practice (NPK vs compost more particularly) its results are interesting.

-Microbes alone had less yield than NPK
-Compost alone had less yield than NPK
-Compost + microbes had in INCREASE in yield compared to NPK

The conclusion suggests some reasons for it but fails to mention one suspicion I have, the microbes help to unlock Organic N in the compost thus the compost and microbes were most effective at making nutrients available to plants.

What are your thoughts?

phasthound
10-01-2008, 07:37 PM
I found this study (http://notulaebotanicae.ro/nbha/article/viewPDFInterstitial/261/253)to be rather interesting.

It compares crop yield with various fertilizing practices. Just NPK in soil, microbe applications, compost in soil, and compost in soil plus microbe applications.

Although the study doesn't have enough information to prove the same nutrient amounts were used for each practice (NPK vs compost more particularly) its results are interesting.

-Microbes alone had less yield than NPK
-Compost alone had less yield than NPK
-Compost + microbes had in INCREASE in yield compared to NPK

The conclusion suggests some reasons for it but fails to mention one suspicion I have, the microbes help to unlock Organic N in the compost thus the compost and microbes were most effective at making nutrients available to plants.

What are your thoughts?

Gee, that's the first time I have ever heard anything like this.

:hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead:

ICT Bill
10-01-2008, 07:50 PM
Make perfect sense to me and one of the reasons that folks that use the practice have such great results with turf and landscape. Some of the NOFA folks have not used fertilizers or herbicides in their practices for 15 to 20 years and have a great client base, I am going to visit some of them next week

Mike Neduea over at plantscapes in CT has always used these practices and employs many folks, he has been around for over 20 years I believe. He also does local ferments by adding soil from areas that do very well and are rich in microbes and adds them to his brews

he does one for rhododendrons that has excellent results, he digs under rhody's found in the wild, brews 'em up and soil injects them in the landscape

JDUtah
10-01-2008, 07:56 PM
Barry,

Did you see I replied to your question in the pesticide forum? :hammerhead: :)

------

Bill,

Interesting. Now if the theory that spraying the microbes releases compost (organic) nutrients faster holds true, perhaps a better compost base on my lawns would help the 123 get better results for me...

Right now SOM for the test lawn is .7%...

ICT Bill
10-01-2008, 08:04 PM
Barry,

Did you see I replied to your question in the pesticide forum? :hammerhead: :)

------

Bill,

Interesting. Now if the theory that spraying the microbes releases compost (organic) nutrients faster holds true, perhaps a better compost base on my lawns would help the 123 get better results for me...

Right now SOM for the test lawn is .7%...

you are probably right, 2% minimum and we would like to see 5 to 7%, no food for the goodguys except what was in the accelerator

wallzwallz
10-01-2008, 08:14 PM
Bill's right Mike rocks,great guy to talk to.

David, that's some crap soil huh? You need to use high OM granular before tea, composted manure base, Alfalfa, or something.

JDUtah
10-01-2008, 08:24 PM
Bill's right Mike rocks,great guy to talk to.

David, that's some crap soil huh? You need to use high OM granular before tea, composted manure base, Alfalfa, or something.

Yes, very poor. The highest SOM I've seen is 1.7% but I will admit I haven't been too concentrated on SOM till late. I sent you a PM (reply to yours) that explains my basic plans.

DUSTYCEDAR
10-02-2008, 10:39 PM
some plants i treat nice others i treat like well i dont do anything to them and u can see a diff between the 2

Smallaxe
10-02-2008, 11:16 PM
[QUOTE=JDUtah;2537458]I found this study (http://notulaebotanicae.ro/nbha/article/viewPDFInterstitial/261/253)to be rather interesting.
...
-Microbes alone had less yield than NPK
-Compost alone had less yield than NPK
-Compost + microbes had in INCREASE in yield compared to NPK

...[QUOTE]

The point is simply - Cation Exchange Sites.

Yes, the microbes work the wonder of 'soil structure' and 'releasing' nutrients. The main point of this experiment is that the NPK found a favorable situation in which is can get comfortable and be available for plantlife when the root comes calling.

What happens when NPK is spread onto 'dirt'? It leaches and/or evaporates, - or bonds to calcium et.al.

And always remember: Organically produced food will never attain the volume that synthetic will.

Fortunately we are dealing with something simple - GRASS. :)

treegal1
10-03-2008, 03:10 AM
And always remember: Organically produced food will never attain the volume that synthetic will.

I have a study out of Cuba done by a Swiss firm that says other wise, and in short order it goes like this, us and Canada use 12 non renewable calories per 1 calorie food out put, and in Havana Cuba they are getting 12 calories of food out put for every 1 calorie of energy that they use. in a similar test the rodale institute has had some great real increase results with not till organic farming, I especially like there roller crimp-er that just takes down the cover crop. there is also Salvador farms in Mexico that grows organic lettuce with a hydroponic method that I an un familiar with, but the yield results when I was scanning were stunning to say the least. I will give you this in your point that some yields of some crops that are not suited for production, corn for instance is going to suffer some fall in crop production from a same farm, till and cover perspective, but if you take all the factors into play there will be a net gain over all, IMO

Smallaxe
10-03-2008, 08:34 AM
I am sure there are some things being done, that demonstrate a possibility of better food production. My garden can out perform any farm field, without question.

However, a million acres of corn, wheat, cotton, soy etc cannot be grown with the yields we have now w/out synthetic fertilizer. One continuous field of wheat is larger than all the cultivation land in Cuba and is being managed by a couple of farmers.

Rich soils are natural in some areas of the world and may perform great with little in the way of inputs. The bread baskets of the world cannot function on CT and corn husks. Even on a small scale local farmers deplete the land w/out ferts. Not enough manure to replace the harvest.

Grass is a no-till and no-harvest ground cover. Yet, we still do our inputs there. Something to think about. :)

ICT Bill
10-03-2008, 09:52 AM
UHHHH HMMM, excuse me but you will have to tell these folks that for the last 20 years they have been unable to compete.

http://www.notill.org/past_conf/wc08/wc08.htm

these are 5000 to 10,000 (some much larger than that) acre farms that have gone to no till, they are turning properties around in 2 to 3 years

One year synthetic, 2 to 3 years later soils tests are coming back saying NO NPK is needed

Smallaxe, you have been reading something, what you may be unaware of is the amount of research backed by the fertilizer institute that is taken as gospil, when in reality they are continuing to feed you manure to back their claims

DUSTYCEDAR
10-03-2008, 09:52 AM
so we need more poo?

DA Quality Lawn & YS
10-03-2008, 10:12 AM
UHHHH HMMM, excuse me but you will have to tell these folks that for the last 20 years they have been unable to compete.

http://www.notill.org/past_conf/wc08/wc08.htm

these are 5000 to 10,000 (some much larger than that) acre farms that have gone to no till, they are turning properties around in 2 to 3 years

One year synthetic, 2 to 3 years later soils tests are coming back saying NO NPK is needed

Smallaxe, you have been reading something, what you may be unaware of is the amount of research backed by the fertilizer institute that is taken as gospil, when in reality they are continuing to feed you manure to back their claims

Not a forum I usually post in but your post has a glaring omission.
No Till is by NO means organic. Farmers that utilize no till pour on so much herbicides on their no till fields, it isn't even funny. Imagine what that is doing to the water supply, among other things.
Farmers used to cultivate their fields as a mechanical means to reduce weed population. Now, farmers just get out that big hi-boy and hose down everything with chemicals. Are we better off? I would have to think not, Tim.

Tim Wilson
10-03-2008, 10:26 AM
No Till is by NO means organic. Farmers that utilize no till pour on so much herbicides on their no till fields, it isn't even funny.

I realize that old school no-till often utilizes a herbicide, however, if I'm correct Bill is referencing a new trend to organic no-till large acreage farming which has produced astounding results.

The other Tim

Tim Wilson
10-03-2008, 10:41 AM
Perhaps I need correcting. After looking through the link Bill posted I can see that in 'that group' the use of herbicides seems accepted and widespread. I assumed he was referring to the recent organic trials which I read about.

ICT Bill
10-03-2008, 11:09 AM
DA, you are right they do kill off the cover crop before planting in most instances, but things are changing, slowly

There is movement by the USDA to eliminate herbicide use and many studies over the years towards growing cover crops and knocking them down and planting underneath

There were several farms last year that came to the meeting that did not use herbicides or NPK and had great yields, it is hard to give up practices that you have relied on for several generations

although the fertilizer salesmen are scratching their collective head

This is definitely not a green group per se, they are all about yields and results, if it can be done with less fertilizer/pesticides they could really care less, results are all that matter

treegal1
10-03-2008, 11:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPzEujr3wzM&feature=related

dont see any dead grass there??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK1jCOXa5kw

and you want it gren most days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFWKAb6ceCE&feature=related

Smallaxe
10-03-2008, 08:30 PM
UHHHH HMMM, excuse me but you will have to tell these folks that for the last 20 years they have been unable to compete.

http://www.notill.org/past_conf/wc08/wc08.htm

these are 5000 to 10,000 (some much larger than that) acre farms that have gone to no till, they are turning properties around in 2 to 3 years

One year synthetic, 2 to 3 years later soils tests are coming back saying NO NPK is needed

Smallaxe, you have been reading something, what you may be unaware of is the amount of research backed by the fertilizer institute that is taken as gospil, when in reality they are continuing to feed you manure to back their claims

Bushels/Acre with synthetic fertilizers compared to those without synthetic fertilizers. I can easily agree with LESS synthetic, but every harvest will eventually require replacement, until we figure out how to draw every bit of mineral out of the sedimentary rock.

Give me a document that clearly demonstrates that one guy outperformed his neighbor after stopping the use of synthetic fertilizer. Then I will look into just how it happened and how long it can continue. No-till is a whole other subject.
Remember - bushel/acre documentation.

This is not from something I read. It is from practical experience from all across the agriculture spectrum. I would be glad to hear that we could stop using syn.ferts. but I haven't seen it yet.

JDUtah
10-03-2008, 08:41 PM
Bushels/Acre with synthetic fertilizers compared to those without synthetic fertilizers. I can easily agree with LESS synthetic, but every harvest will eventually require replacement, until we figure out how to draw every bit of mineral out of the sedimentary rock.

Give me a document that clearly demonstrates that one guy outperformed his neighbor after stopping the use of synthetic fertilizer. Then I will look into just how it happened and how long it can continue. No-till is a whole other subject.
Remember - bushel/acre documentation.

This is not from something I read. It is from practical experience from all across the agriculture spectrum. I would be glad to hear that we could stop using syn.ferts. but I haven't seen it yet.


Go re-read the article...
Organic practices did outproduce NPK grown plants...

treegal1
10-03-2008, 08:46 PM
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936

the pod cast is on the left of the pic just click and listen.

treegal1
10-03-2008, 08:53 PM
Inside Organics:
New Michigan Global Yield Comparison Study Challenges Critics Who Claim Organic Farmers Can’t Feed the World
By Roger Blobaum
This article was first printed in the January-February 2008 issue of the Organic Broadcaster, published by the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service
When a Wisconsin dairy farmer slammed organic farming recently after accepting a local service club award for his 750-cow conventional milking operation, it brought back bad memories of similar attacks over the last 30 years that have never been backed up by scientific or economic data.
“If the entire economy went to organic farming, I want to know who’s going to decide who starves, because I can guarantee we would not be able to produce enough food in this country to feed our people,” the farmer was quoted as saying after receiving the club’s Distinguished Agriculturist Award. His critical remarks about organic farming were reported in a story spread over half a page in a recent issue of a Wisconsin farm weekly.
These comments echo the attack launched in the early 1970s by Earl Butz, the controversial Nixon-appointed secretary of agriculture who demanded to know how we would decide which 50 million people would starve if organic farming methods were adopted. Another USDA official claimed manure piles as high as the Empire State Building would be needed to make organic farming work.
Unfortunately no research comparing organic and conventional yields was available in the 1970s to refute these phony claims. But nearly 300 yield comparison studies have been done since then and most have concluded there is little, if any, difference between organic and conventional farming yields and economic returns. One of the latest and best is the 15-year Rodale Institute study that found yields from organic farming were equal to conventional yields after four years.
Feeding the World Study
The Wisconsin dairy farmer’s attempt to discredit organic came months after publication of the most comprehensive peer-reviewed study ever done to test whether low yields and insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilizers make it impossible for organic farming to feed the world. In a study published in June of 2007, “Organic agriculture and the global food supply” a University of Michigan team examined 293 studies from around the world that compared yields of the full range of food crops produced with organic and conventional methods.
“Using average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base,” the study team reported in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, a multidisciplinary journal. “Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even greater population, without increasing the agricultural land base.”
The researchers also evaluated the amount of nitrogen potentially available from fixation by leguminous cover crops used as fertilizer. “Data from both temperate and tropical agroecosystems,” they concluded, “suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertilizer currently in use.”
Publication of the Wisconsin farmer’s comments was especially surprising since Wisconsin is known as one of the nation’s top organic farming states and its organic dairy sector is flourishing. Organic agriculture in Wisconsin also has political acceptance and support, including an organic task force appointed by the governor and government-funded training for extension specialists and other agricultural professionals.
Raising questions about the ability of organic farmers to provide enough food also seems especially far fetched at a time when the federal government is going all out to expand grain exports, used primarily for livestock and poultry feed in other countries, and Congress is providing ever-larger subsidies for conversion of food crops to ethanol, biodiesel, plastic, and other industrial products.
Challenging False Claim Peddlers
Hopefully the new Michigan research provides the kind of information that will enable organic farming supporters to challenge critics who use the media to stir up and peddle false claims about organic food and farming. Unfortunately some of these phony claims have been published in respected newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and aired on network television.
Most attacks in recent years have originated with the Hudson Institute, a think tank supported primarily by agribusiness companies selling chemicals and other conventional farming inputs. Denis Avery is the main spokesman trying to alarm both policymakers and the public by making false claims about organic yields and insisting “organic farming can never feed the world.”
A typical example is an Avery op ed piece published in many daily papers that claimed data gathered by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) showed Americans who eat organic food are eight times as likely to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria. However the CDC, a federal agency, reported when challenged by the organic industry that it has never gathered any kind of data that could link organic food to any illness and issued a public statement saying Avery’s report was baseless and erroneous.
Avery also recycles discredited research results, including a fake Texas A&M study that concluded organic yields were only 50 percent as high as yields on conventional farms. This study was discredited when it was disclosed that the only research involved was surveying several land grant university professors to get estimates of organic yields on several crops. No real yield data was used in this research and none of the professors providing estimates were involved in any way in organic yield data collection.
Another national critic is the Center for Consumer Freedom, which distributes distorted press releases and other materials for an industry coalition funded primarily by national food and beverage companies. Its main targets are consumer, environmental, animal protection, and other nonprofits that support organic food and farming and foundations that help fund them.
“A wave of anti-agribusiness activism threatens the food and beverage industry like nothing we have seen before,” a published Center tirade stated. “Celebrity chefs linked to cultish guru followers have joined forces with green brigades of anti-corporate activists and organic food marketers to flood consumers with bad science, generate fear about the quality of the food supply, and attack the morality of producers.”
ABC News Attack on Organic
The worst network television example was an ABC 20/20 program that used fabricated research to claim pesticide levels in organic produce were as high as those in conventional produce, and that consumers were more likely to get food-borne illnesses from organic produce. The program was aired once early in 2000 and then rebroadcast, despite objections from the Organic Trade Association.
“Give Us a Fake: How ABC News Fabricated One Lab Study and Distorted Another to Debunk Organic Food,” a report by an independent investigator, showed the tests that 20/20 reporter John Stossel claimed were performed to examine pesticides in produce were, in fact, never conducted. It also showed that ABC News did have some laboratory tests on bacteria but that the scientists who conducted them said they were incapable of showing any link between E. coli and organic food.
It is likely Avery and other organic critics will try to discredit the new Michigan study. But that may be difficult because a second study of the potential of a global shift to organic farming based on research at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences came to very similar conclusions. The researchers in this case were economists, agronomists, and international development experts who used a respected research model developed by the World Bank.
A commentary by Brian Halweil, a senior Worldwatch Institute researcher, suggests these new studies will help focus attention on the many benefits of organic farming. “Studies have shown, for example, that the ‘external’ costs of organic farming–erosion, chemical pollution to drinking water, death of birds and other wildlife–are just one-third those of conventional farming,” he wrote. “Surveys from every continent show that organic farms support many more species of birds, wild plants, insects and other wildlife than conventional farms.”
Although the myth of low-yielding organic farming may be fading, Halweil suggests, the benefits of organic can be realized without a complete global conversion. Some experts think a more hopeful and reasonable way forward, he noted, is a sort of middle ground where more and more farmers adopt the principles of organic farming even if they don’t follow the approach religiously.
The Michigan and Danish studies are highly significant and organic farmers now have an opportunity to use this peer-reviewed research to challenge the Averys and other irresponsible critics who use fake and distorted information to try to discredit organic farming. It’s time to go on the offensive by publicizing the many public benefits of organic, by sharing the results of these new studies with reporters and policymakers, by pushing back against critics making false claims, and by mobilizing public support for the newly-endorsed organic path to feeding the world.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091304&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1742170507001640
Roger Blobaum is an agricultural consultant providing professional services to organic and sustainable agriculture organizations and institutions. Comments on this analysis can be directed to Roger Blobaum at RJBlobaum@cs.com

= cut and paste

treegal1
10-03-2008, 09:21 PM
http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2002/ruraldev2002/paper12.htm

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn240farmsed

http://www.newfarm.org/columns/research_paul/2007/0207/fst.shtml

http://library.wur.nl/file/wurpubs/LUWPUBRD_00335676_A502_001.pdf

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicAgriculture.php

see the thing of this is that we are doing it as well, sod farms tree farms and even the largest citrus grower in the state has now taken interest in how I am doing it, thats just the tip of the ice berg, we are talking to a large sugar producer in the glades area, he just happened to drive by the farm every now and then and has seen the turn around just in our hedge, he said that thing was ragged for years until i sprayed it, he seen me with no ppe and almost drinking the stuff, 6 weeks later and the thing has grown 3 feet, not an exaggeration!!!! we have photo documents to prove it!!! when he ask and I said what I had used he said he will get back to me, and he has. I ask for some cash to talk to him as I needed some bills paid he was on board, we have talked some and he is Cuban, a real marilista. he asks me why no one does it here and how can we set him up to do 35,000. acres in my organic way, says he will try anything for a while, and if we can grow Cain like we grow a hedge then we are going to be rich on just the savings alone!!! he pays to dump bone char, I almost barfed in his office when he said that.

DUSTYCEDAR
10-03-2008, 11:59 PM
WITH THE COST OF FERT
farmers will try to save any way they can so maby we can all learn something

Smallaxe
10-04-2008, 10:22 AM
Go re-read the article...
Organic practices did outproduce NPK grown plants...

Which article? There was a lead in to a dozen different farmers' experiences. None of the intros talked about thousands of acres out performing NPK. Which interview had the dox??

Smallaxe
10-04-2008, 10:34 AM
http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2002/ruraldev2002/paper12.htm

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn240farmsed

http://www.newfarm.org/columns/research_paul/2007/0207/fst.shtml

http://library.wur.nl/file/wurpubs/LUWPUBRD_00335676_A502_001.pdf

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OrganicAgriculture.php

see the thing of this is that we are doing it as well, sod farms tree farms and even the largest citrus grower in the state has now taken interest in how I am doing it, thats just the tip of the ice berg, we are talking to a large sugar producer in the glades area, he just happened to drive by the farm every now and then and has seen the turn around just in our hedge, he said that thing was ragged for years until i sprayed it, he seen me with no ppe and almost drinking the stuff, 6 weeks later and the thing has grown 3 feet, not an exaggeration!!!! we have photo documents to prove it!!! when he ask and I said what I had used he said he will get back to me, and he has. I ask for some cash to talk to him as I needed some bills paid he was on board, we have talked some and he is Cuban, a real marilista. he asks me why no one does it here and how can we set him up to do 35,000. acres in my organic way, says he will try anything for a while, and if we can grow Cain like we grow a hedge then we are going to be rich on just the savings alone!!! he pays to dump bone char, I almost barfed in his office when he said that.

I really am on your side. :)

However, it must be pointed out that the 5000 acre Smith farm in the corn/wheat belt uses "x" amount of NPK/Acre and yields 210 bu/A.
When his neighbor with roughly the same soil and weather conditions 'goes organic' on his 5000 acre patch and yields 210 bu/A then you have a 'discovery'.

My solution to feeding the world with organic food is for the lazy city slickers with their shiny shoes get their hands dirty and grow something to eat in their little patch of earth instead something as useless as grass and pretty flowers. How lame is that?

JDUtah
10-04-2008, 12:23 PM
Which article? There was a lead in to a dozen different farmers' experiences. None of the intros talked about thousands of acres out performing NPK. Which interview had the dox??

I liked an article in the first post of this thread...

The Rosemary outperformed the NPK whith compost and tea...

growingdeeprootsorganicly
10-04-2008, 12:42 PM
-Compost + microbes had in INCREASE in yield compared to NPK

one suspicion I have, the microbes help to unlock Organic N in the compost thus the compost and microbes were most effective at making nutrients available to plants.


ding ding ding............we have a winner!!!!

JDUtah
10-04-2008, 12:48 PM
Have you read any unbiased formal studies to prove it though? That'd be nice...

ICT Bill
10-04-2008, 01:50 PM
Have you read any unbiased formal studies to prove it though? That'd be nice...


Here are several

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/july98/bacteria.htm

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/review/2004/rhizobacteria/

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107613913/abstract

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v286/n5776/abs/286885a0.html

http://www.citeulike.org/group/112/article/139397

Search "plant growth Promoting Rhizobacteria" you will find over 30,000 papers of peer reviewed documentation, it indeed is true and being used all over the world

JDUtah
10-04-2008, 02:16 PM
Bill,

Thank you. Those articles suggest that teaming with microbes is beneficial, however none of them demonstrate that an aggressive organic program can outproduce an aggressive NPK program because of increased mineralization due to microbe application, which was the question at hand...

It would be cool to find an appropriate related study...

ICT Bill
10-05-2008, 01:18 AM
Bill,

Thank you. Those articles suggest that teaming with microbes is beneficial, however none of them demonstrate that an aggressive organic program can outproduce an aggressive NPK program because of increased mineralization due to microbe application, which was the question at hand...

It would be cool to find an appropriate related study...

You are completely out of your mind, I would suggest, or you did not get the core of what the articles selected had to offer

144% increase in wheat production AND YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT???

these are non leachable forms of foods for plants, they, in your terms, are not even considered a form of nutrient

:hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead:
I am not understanding where you are coming from, please help

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 01:35 AM
It's a simple/clear/specific question. Perhaps I need to phrase my question like Tim’s to get a straight answer? I'll quote it hoping I won’t have to ask again...

Do those articles "demonstrate that an aggressive organic program can out produce an aggressive NPK program because of increased mineralization due to microbe application"?

It's not a hard question to understand.

I am not saying your articles were not good... they just didn't address my question directly...

Side note: I'm not out of my mind buddy... and when the 'save the earth' mentality encourages person A to call person B crazy because person B thinks more analytically instead of emotionally(like person A) I get rather fed up...

Don't give me that "since it is a natural process it is safer" crap either... remember the 70+ horses that died in AZ died form NATURALLY OCCURING Nitrate... Both sides of the coin are good, when done responsibly…

What do you mean "they, in your terms, are not even considered a form of nutrient"?

ICT Bill
10-05-2008, 01:49 AM
"demonstrate that an aggressive organic program can out produce an aggressive NPK program because of increased mineralization due to microbe application"?


Define demonstrate
what is the definition of organic program
define produce
aggresive to what degree
mineralization of what
please be specific as to which microbes and the application that they are being applied for

You want specifics but are unable to define your own parameters, therefore it is quite impossible to answer the question, rather than going on a rant about how I did not answer the question you should at your base.........pause and think

The questions are leading you in the wrong direction, the answer will never be what you want

ICT Bill
10-05-2008, 01:54 AM
here www.google.com
search on, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria

Please reply on how many articles there are, please read a few

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 02:02 AM
Bill,

Your $hit is getting annoying... I am almost ready to join Deeproots crusade for spreading the truth about you and your 123 product.. I have pictures too... but I have tried to be civil and helpful to your real motive and so far have withheld my pictures/comments from the ignorant lurker...

How the H^* do you know what "answer" I want? You don't, so stop putting BS in my mouth... and stop filling everyone with BS... you think you can dodge questions well, but everyone sees it.. and it does not help you sell your 'save the planet' products...

"people with integrity expect to be believe, and when the're not they let time prove them right"

Heh, time hasn't proved your integrity to me... can you say "opposite"?

I hope you get tired of defending your crap soon and consider ending your advertising contract with moose river media... This forum could then be a more safe and effective place to discuss real world organic lawn care issues...

Heh, wait a few till I post on the other thread... you think I question your integrity here? I'll let your words speak for themselves...

You do not want to entice me to crusade against you... I can play politics just as well as you do...

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 02:05 AM
here www.google.com
search on, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria

Please reply on how many articles there are, please read a few

Hah, argument by numers?

google search "plant growth promoting rhizobacteria"
36,000 returns

google search "plant growth promoting fertilizer"
210,000 returns

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I need not say more....

Kiril
10-05-2008, 11:22 AM
tsk tsk people.

Organic this .... chem that .... all moot. Bottom line, if you expect more out of your soils than they can provide naturally, then your system will decline with time without some type of inputs, be they organic, chem, or magic fairy dust. Can anyone realistically expect to remove x amount of biomass from a piece of land, year after year after year, without ever having the need to replenishing what was removed?

As the world population continues to grow :hammerhead: , we need to get more out of an acre of land than in the past. Can this be done organically on a large scale in an economically feasible fashion? Perhaps, or perhaps not .... only time will tell.

.
.
.
.
.
Oh yea ...... Compost does a soil good.

muddstopper
10-05-2008, 01:44 PM
tsk tsk people.

Organic this .... chem that .... all moot. Bottom line, if you expect more out of your soils than they can provide naturally, then your system will decline with time without some type of inputs, be they organic, chem, or magic fairy dust. Can anyone realistically expect to remove x amount of biomass from a piece of land, year after year after year, without ever having the need to replenishing what was removed?

As the world population continues to grow :hammerhead: , we need to get more out of an acre of land than in the past. Can this be done organically on a large scale in an economically feasible fashion? Perhaps, or perhaps not .... only time will tell.

.
.
.
.
.
Oh yea ...... Compost does a soil good.

Tell them Kiril!!!

On another note, concerning a post from TG. Without going back and looking at who said what concerning the organics use and relationship to Ecoli deaths, we only have to look back to this past summer when we couldnt find tomatoes, and last year to the spinage contamination to see that organic farming can be hazardous. I have read many posts referring to the use of molassis for breaking down thatch, promoteing benefitual bacterial growth in compost teas, excellerating the breakdown of compost materials, etc, etc. Well, guess which form of Bacteria really thrives in a mollases rich enviroment, Thats right, E coli.

Without going back and relooking up resources, I cant name names or provide links, but, a few years back, 1993, I think, Dr. Henry Kobble, was asked why do some organic products seem to work so well in some areas and not so well in others. The answer was simply the soil has to be in balance in order for the the product to work. All soils are different and contain a different chemical makeup, only by applying the missing elements are we going to be able achieve a soil balance that will allow those products to work every where. In soil rich in organic matter, soil conditioners/bio-innoculants have shown a wonderful increase in crop production, but in as little as three years, such production has been seen to taper off and to even be reduced to amounts less than previous before the innoculants where applied, even with continued use of the biologial product. The reason is fairly simple, each crop that is removed will also remove a certain percentage of the available nutrients contained in that soil. This removeal of nutrients/elements must be replaced inorder to maintain the correct balance. This doesnot mean that the soil no longer contain the missing elements, only that the smaller colloidial particles are no longer readily available. Quite simply, its hard to get the necessary calcium, or other nutrient from a rock, even with microbial intrevention.

There is much discussion about what is the proper soil balance, and no one seems to be able to answer that question in agreement with others. In order to obtain maximum production, one has to sample test their soil for several years to see which nutrients are being removed and at what rates. If that soil shows drastic reductions of any elements, these elements will need to be replaced. The replacement of said elements can be with organic products, but only if the organic products contain the required elements in the required quantities. Over applying other unneeded elements, thur the use of compost or chemicals, will only serve to throw the soil further out of balance, resulting in larger amounts of the needed element to be applied in order compensate.

Another mis-conception in the use of legumes as cover crops. Yes legumes can fixate nitrogen into the soil, but the standard rule of thumb that a crop of whatever will fixate set amount of N is miss-interpeted. The numbers usually used to show how much N a certain legume can fixate is usually based on a very good growing season. The problem with this is that in the years of drought or other weather related events, and even human errors, this fixateable amount of N can be drasticly reduced to levels of 25% or less than the published numbers. In order to grow that 210 bushel/acre corn crop, that missing N must be accounted for, either thru more applications of compost or chemicals, or thru removal of stored N already contained in the soil. For 210 bushels of corn that would be about 315lbs N.

My opinion is that to take a few studies done in controlled situations and then apply those finding to every situation is ridiculous. Not saying those studies arenot valid or without merit, just that we need to use a little common sense before taking them as the gospel of life.

Tim Wilson
10-05-2008, 02:50 PM
Without going back and looking at who said what concerning the organics use and relationship to Ecoli deaths, we only have to look back to this past summer when we couldnt find tomatoes, and last year to the spinage contamination to see that organic farming can be hazardous. I have read many posts referring to the use of molassis for breaking down thatch, promoteing benefitual bacterial growth in compost teas, excellerating the breakdown of compost materials, etc, etc. Well, guess which form of Bacteria really thrives in a mollases rich enviroment, Thats right, E coli.


I thought that the culprit spinach was grown traditionally and was contaminated by irrigation water and cattle being raised proximally. Am I wrong?

Was the tomato problem every settled? I thought the latest blame was peppers from Mexico.

The e-coli molasses thing is, to the best of my knowledge, a myth which arose from some incorrectly conducted studies. Molasses will feed whatever bacterial species it is given to.

If you are going to make fear mongering statements, perhaps please provide citations.

The one word in Kiril's excellent post which strikes me is 'naturally'. Growing as naturally as possible is a good goal, while finding means within this method to feed a hungry population. There are instances and areas of the world where farmers are succeeding in growing large yields of food using natural techniques. These instances and areas are where North American farmers should be turning their attention to learn how to grow with less energy input.

Of course with landscaping this is simple; grow indigenous.

I the world of farming there needs to be a trend away from industrialized monsters back to family farms, feeding, primarily local (in NA) with a lower percentage for export and money-asses. This is the lesson our failing economy is trying to teach us but we are going kicking and screaming.

IMHO Dr. Kobble needs to get out more. Learn from Cuba, Thailand, India. Of course if you try to grow a crop unsuited to an environment your success will be limited. Who fertilized the redwoods?

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 03:32 PM
The one word in Kiril's excellent post which strikes me is 'naturally'. Growing as naturally as possible is a good goal, while finding means within this method to feed a hungry population. There are instances and areas of the world where farmers are succeeding in growing large yields of food using natural techniques. These instances and areas are where North American farmers should be turning their attention to learn how to grow with less energy input.

I think the point in Mudstoppers very appropriate post is that there is a certain quality of soil that promotes favorable plant growth. While this quality of soil reaches most plants, and thus can be a general (but arguabe) standard accross the world, the soil is not so 'standardized' and doesn't reach across so many barriers.

A person living in Utah may not see acceptable results by 'turning their attention [to someone with potentially completely different soil needs] to learn how to grow with less energy input".

Growing plants is a localized thing, dealing with localized soil, dealing with localized waste(organic), dealing with localized standards... requiring educated and localized decisions as to what will be most effective.

Am I saying to H^*& with the developing countries ways of doing things? no! But educated decisions must be made according to your circumstances.

I have some good examples but don't want to share them as they reveal things that might help my local competitors...

Read my next post (Reply to Mudstoppers) for a little more insight into my thinking... if you want...

treegal1
10-05-2008, 04:15 PM
ok so I will step in it some more just to be a good sport, lets see, maybe we need to get more of the waste nutrients back into circulation, say with more human manure re use, better use of bone waste in animal rendering, wood ash use instead of wasting it to a land fill. yes mineral needs of farm land are needed to maintain fertility, that is a given, we are all familiar with the statement that mater can not be created or destroyed, that says it all, but mining the sh*t out of my state to grow corn for a pre M? what do you think of, em take a land fill and compost that for your needs, yadayada metals and all that, or the better one it makes disease, that's just BS its cows and pigs in a pit type farm that make E-coli that produce vitamin K2 in your gut, yes humans carry it, just not a certain type that can harm you, that comes from cows left to stand in sh*t, not from organic garden practices, as Tim pointed out, look at Cuba, do they have and recalls??? not a one since the special period started!!!!

yes molasses feeds bacterium that's why we use it in small amounts, so that aerobic out compete the nasty little anaerobic. also with proper composting there is little to no danger of a soil born infection, I know that I would not eat crap or touch it, but I have worked with compost and worm casts made from the worst of the worst and have to tell ya I am sick so few days in the last 10 years, wait I have not been sick at all, car crash and turn gut from ATV, but not even a cold, my new guy was all eaten up with boot rot a few days working in the casts in bare feet or sandals and take a guess no more boot rot! now I am not saying that some components of traditional fert is not needed, but the N has got to go along with some of the other more polluting forms of elements that are used, take that away and.................

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 04:43 PM
OK, got some time to dissect...

Tell them Kiril!!!

On another note, concerning a post from TG. Without going back and looking at who said what concerning the organics use and relationship to Ecoli deaths, we only have to look back to this past summer when we couldnt find tomatoes, and last year to the spinage contamination to see that organic farming can be hazardous. I have read many posts referring to the use of molassis for breaking down thatch, promoteing benefitual bacterial growth in compost teas, excellerating the breakdown of compost materials, etc, etc. Well, guess which form of Bacteria really thrives in a mollases rich enviroment, Thats right, E coli.

Not sure if this is what you were referring to but here is a thread (http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=247625&page=3).

More specifically here is a USDA article (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=168430) that addresses e. Coli and molasses ISSUES. Quoted...

"Our study demonstrates that care should be taken to avoid regrowth of pathogens that pose a potential public health risk. Several important human pathogenic bacteria commonly occur in animal waste used as starting materials for compost. Although the composting process usually kills these, we have demonstrated that certain conditions can negate this benefit by allowing regrowth from essentially undetectable numbers of surviving bacteria. Specifically, use of molasses as an amendment to compost teas for the purpose of stimulating beneficial microbial populations, also stimulates populations of fast-growing, pathogenic Salmonella and E. coli, and this practice be avoided, or pursued with utmost caution."

Without going back and relooking up resources, I cant name names or provide links, but, a few years back, 1993, I think, Dr. Henry Kobble, was asked why do some organic products seem to work so well in some areas and not so well in others. The answer was simply the soil has to be in balance in order for the the product to work.

Very good answer IMO

All soils are different and contain a different chemical makeup, only by applying the missing elements are we going to be able achieve a soil balance that will allow those products to work every where.

Exactly! And sometimes one organic method is more applicable than another... and sometimes NO organic methods are as applicable as balancing the soil as a specific input that is only available by human synthesis (ie. chemical)

In soil rich in organic matter, soil conditioners/bio-innoculants have shown a wonderful increase in crop production, but in as little as three years, such production has been seen to taper off and to even be reduced to amounts less than previous before the innoculants where applied, even with continued use of the biologial product.

That fits with my understanding that while applying CT regularly might increase mineralization of organic matter (and give you results), you must ALSO regularly apply more organic matter or you will eventually leave the soil in worse shape than when you started...

The reason is fairly simple, each crop that is removed will also remove a certain percentage of the available nutrients contained in that soil. This removeal of nutrients/elements must be replaced in order to maintain the correct balance. This does not mean that the soil no longer contain the missing elements, only that the smaller colloidial particles are no longer readily available. Quite simply, its hard to get the necessary calcium, or other nutrient from a rock, even with microbial intrevention.

And that is why sometimes you need to intervene... hopefully with an organic waste stream, but sometimes with a synthesized, pure, product...

There is much discussion about what is the proper soil balance, and no one seems to be able to answer that question in agreement with others.

:cry: if only there was one answer... :) Then again... we wouldn't have jobs...

In order to obtain maximum production, one has to sample test their soil for several years to see which nutrients are being removed and at what rates. If that soil shows drastic reductions of any elements, these elements will need to be replaced.

Soil test every year... research specifically what inputs do what.. know what your soil needs and different ways to provide it.. and you will be an effective land manager.

The replacement of said elements can be with organic products, but only if the organic products contain the required elements in the required quantities. Over applying other unneeded elements, thur the use of compost or chemicals, will only serve to throw the soil further out of balance, resulting in larger amounts of the needed element to be applied in order compensate.

Like if you have ample P but need N... and you apply compost which has plenty of available P, but only (usually) .06% available N... did you throw the P too high? Will the eventual release of organic N in the compost make it worth it in the long run? Should you apply "organic" (not really) Nitrogen (see Sodium Nitrate) instead to increase N without increasing P? Maybe.. but if your soil already has enough Sodium, you could run into issues there...

Point is... the only way to really manage a soil is to know what you have, what you need, what you don't need, and how to apply what you need without applying what you don't need (which is harder to do with organics).

Another mis-conception in the use of legumes as cover crops. Yes legumes can fixate nitrogen into the soil, but the standard rule of thumb that a crop of whatever will fixate set amount of N is miss-interpeted. The numbers usually used to show how much N a certain legume can fixate is usually based on a very good growing season.

Isn't there something about how these microbes only do that if they need to because lack of available N anyway?

You need microbial thrivation (lol is that a word) for it to work.. in the real world with watering restrictions, compaction issues, unknown inputs, uncontrollable circumstances.. you really can't guarantee that the microbes will be alive enough to put out what the plant needs... (I still support organics guys, don't flame me for that)

The problem with this is that in the years of drought or other weather related events, and even human errors, this fixateable amount of N can be drasticly reduced to levels of 25% or less than the published numbers.

and in those years the 'all organic' people who do not know exactly what they are doing or what to do about it are... sca-rew-ed

In order to grow that 210 bushel/acre corn crop, that missing N must be accounted for, either thru more applications of compost or chemicals, or thru removal of stored N already contained in the soil. For 210 bushels of corn that would be about 315lbs N.

If you add the compost to restore the N.. are you contributing to Phosphate contamination? What about heavy metals?

My opinion is that to take a few studies done in controlled situations and then apply those finding to every situation is ridiculous. Not saying those studies arenot valid or without merit, just that we need to use a little common sense before taking them as the gospel of life.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 05:01 PM
ok so I will step in it some more just to be a good sport, lets see, maybe we need to get more of the waste nutrients back into circulation, say with more human manure re use, better use of bone waste in animal rendering, wood ash use instead of wasting it to a land fill. yes mineral needs of farm land are needed to maintain fertility, that is a given, we are all familiar with the statement that mater can not be created or destroyed, that says it all, but mining the sh*t out of my state to grow corn for a pre M? what do you think of, em take a land fill and compost that for your needs, yadayada metals and all that, or the better one it makes disease, that's just BS its cows and pigs in a pit type farm that make E-coli that produce vitamin K2 in your gut, yes humans carry it, just not a certain type that can harm you, that comes from cows left to stand in sh*t, not from organic garden practices, as Tim pointed out, look at Cuba, do they have and recalls??? not a one since the special period started!!!!

yes molasses feeds bacterium that's why we use it in small amounts, so that aerobic out compete the nasty little anaerobic. also with proper composting there is little to no danger of a soil born infection, I know that I would not eat crap or touch it, but I have worked with compost and worm casts made from the worst of the worst and have to tell ya I am sick so few days in the last 10 years, wait I have not been sick at all, car crash and turn gut from ATV, but not even a cold, my new guy was all eaten up with boot rot a few days working in the casts in bare feet or sandals and take a guess no more boot rot! now I am not saying that some components of traditional fert is not needed, but the N has got to go along with some of the other more polluting forms of elements that are used, take that away and.................

Very good Tree... I agree with almost ALL of it... except Corn Gluten Meal...

Molasses is a byproduct of sugar production from sugar beet or sugar cane. The sugar is extracted out repeatedly (usually 3 times) and what you have left is molasses... AKA 'waste'... this 'waste' is high in mineral nutrients (iron and others) and has been marketed as a nutrient rich sweetener, or feed additive.

The molasses (waste stream) is now also used as a microbe food and used in organic care practices... waste to usable product = good.

Now for CGM...
Corn is sometimes used to make corn syrup... a sugar... This process of sugar production produces a waste known as Corn Gluten (just like molasses is a waste from sugar production).

Originally this 'waste' really didn't have a market to resell into that I know of, but (Iowa State?) did some studies that showed not only could it be a good source of organic nutrients for soil... it had a side effect of discouraging crabgrass sprouting...

So now the waste(CGM) can be used as a product... and is a good thing... just like molasses.

When I studied that and realized people don't grow corn to make CGM.. but to make sugar and as a way of turning waste into product sell CGM.. I don't have any problem buying it... except the fact that the market was pioneered by capitalists and we find it to be rather expensive...

So.. molasses=sustainable... CGM=sustainable...

BUT the 'organic fertilizer' Corn meal on the other hand=NOT sustainable...

CGM=good
Corn meal=not good

Other then that Tree... I love what you had to say.

treegal1
10-05-2008, 06:49 PM
ok so you dont have a dog or animals thats clear now, or on the other hand you never read the label, cmg is a food for all sorts of animals, even fish food to feed cage raised fish. so you are talking a food stream out of the food chain, not so much with molasses, especially orange molasses! also I have tested and had confirmed that the old compost that has reached a certain finished state does not have any pathogens, wood compost will certainly not have any and worm casts are the same on bad bugs or germs that will harm us, I think that that test was more about MANURE, and done by the UassDa, just ask the citrus farmer how useful they are!!!!


SEE THE THING OF THIS IS THAT I HAVE SEEN WITH MY EYES THE THE ORGANIC METHODS WORK AND SOME TIMES WORK BETTER, AND BELIEVE, WAIT I KNOW THAT THEY WILL WORK SMALL SCALE AND LARGE. you are welcome to see how 11 million people can do it, just come on down and we can go take a look, we will be going again real soon.

treegal1
10-05-2008, 06:57 PM
here this is recycling at its best, its a taxi during the day....

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 06:59 PM
not so much with molasses, especially orange molasses!

Not to nit-pick, what is orange molasses?

A google search only returns food recipes... for humans (first 5 or so pages)... = not so much a food source? :confused:

And the point of the CGM, is that it is the same thing as molasses... a byproduct of sugar production.

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 07:24 PM
I hope this is the future of 'go green' cars...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vocy_LmpZlM

And of low energy hydrogen production using a non-spendable catalyst...
http://pesn.com/2007/05/17/9500471_Hydrogen_via_Aluminum_Gallium/
The method makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen - two major challenges in creating a hydrogen economy, said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process.

'The hydrogen is generated on demand, so you only produce as much as you need when you need it,' said Woodall, who presented research findings detailing how the system works during a recent energy symposium at Purdue.

The technology could be used to drive small internal combustion engines in various applications, including portable emergency generators, lawn mowers and chain saws. The process could, in theory, also be used to replace gasoline for cars and trucks, he said.

I don't know about you but the thought of driving a zero emmision car using fuel that took almost zero emmisions to make gets me off :)

DeepGreenLawn
10-05-2008, 07:32 PM
From what I understand those things are going to be a nightmare for us firemen when working accidents... they aren't sounding too safe from that stand point

treegal1
10-05-2008, 07:39 PM
OMG JD what is wrong with growing algae to make the H, just don't give them any sulfur and they burp pure H, never mind, I figured that with all this plant stuff you had going that would have been a natural for you to try out, also that old car runs on moon shine, just rum that is dehydrated with silica sand off a beach, every one is not seeing the forest for the trees. IMO. And orange molasses are a byproduct of the orange concentrate process, corn meal gluten is a by product of wet milling corn meal, the sugars and cmg are by products, the HFCS is just the same more or less, it was a waste stream until coke found it.LOLOL. corn is just not the greatest crop in the world IMO,but that's another time. do you know that there is almost 700 tons a month come off one Norrie farm that takes up 3 acres

treegal1
10-05-2008, 07:41 PM
From what I understand those things are going to be a nightmare for us firemen when working accidents... they aren't sounding too safe from that stand point well hello mr fire man, can u tell us about how hard it is to burn veg oil, please.LOLOL

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 07:50 PM
OMG JD what is wrong with growing algae to make the H, just don't give them any sulfur and they burp pure H, never mind, I figured that with all this plant stuff you had going that would have been a natural for you to try out, also that old car runs on moon shine, just rum that is dehydrated with silica sand off a beach, every one is not seeing the forest for the trees. IMO. And orange molasses are a byproduct of the orange concentrate process, corn meal gluten is a by product of wet milling corn meal, the sugars and cmg are by products, the HFCS is just the same more or less, it was a waste stream until coke found it.LOLOL. corn is just not the greatest crop in the world IMO,but that's another time. do you know that there is almost 700 tons a month come off one Norrie farm that takes up 3 acres

Cool stuff :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Tim Wilson
10-05-2008, 08:03 PM
David,

You are going to need to not be so knee jerky if you will ever learn anything.

Did I say that in learning from other methods, that we would be growing the same crops? I did say natural farming techniques.

Why do you show your American superior attitude by describing these as developing countries or whatever term it was you used. In this regard they are more advanced and superior.

If you are referring to the Ingram Millner study for USDA, it is the flawed study I meant. I personally communicated with one of the scientists and she could not correctly substantiate her methods. She told me the methods and results would be peer reviewed and she would contact me. I'm still waiting. They inoculated their subject with e-coli and never quantified other organisms. I too can grow e-coli in CT by feeding it molasses.

Of course different soils support different plants in different climates. Did I not say this? Can you read? Don't be a ninny.

Tim

DeepGreenLawn
10-05-2008, 08:07 PM
Crap... there I go again...

I meant the fuel cell cars... from what I understand the pressure built up in these things doesn't work too well when climbing around in and on them after a few rolls and flips...

DeepGreenLawn
10-05-2008, 08:12 PM
Why do you show your American superior attitude by describing these as developing countries or whatever term it was you used. In this regard they are more advanced and superior.

WAY off topic but.... did you know...

If you make $40,000 per year you are in the top 1% of income earners...

Only 3% of the world owns a vehicle... not more than one or a luxury... A vehicle...

The average 2 car garage is 3.5 times bigger than the average home...

Now... you may have just thought... "Well yeah... that is in the WORLD."

If you did...


Why do you show your American superior attitude...

Now think about what you just said... pretty aragant wasn't it? And we still work our a$$es off to make more money and we are already FILTHY RICH!

OK... back to topic...

treegal1
10-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Crap... there I go again...

I meant the fuel cell cars... from what I understand the pressure built up in these things doesn't work too well when climbing around in and on them after a few rolls and flips...
I know what you meant its the pressure Hindenburg in a roll over, although the veg oil would be a mess, not a fiery ball of flame

Tim Wilson
10-05-2008, 08:22 PM
The average 2 car garage is 3.5 times bigger than the average home...

Yeah mine is about the size of a 2 car garage but it's luxury compared to the plastic tent I spent a winter in.

JDUtah
10-05-2008, 08:30 PM
I picture more of an explosion from the pressurized hydrogen tanks... Ka-pow... it is an issue to consider.

----

Tim,

some points taken, but hard to digest... thanks though.

I don't think my current style is going to affect my learning... I have learned a ton in this very discussion in this thread... teaching and spreading my side of the story on the other hand... ... ...

Rant on (not pointed at Tim)...

About a Superior attitude...

The tree hugging save the planet NO chemical people are the epitome of a "superior attitude". Anytime it is even minutely suggested that a chemical might be the appropriate solution they behave in a way that suggests thier attitude is that their way is superior.. when sometimes it just might not be...

The middle ground thinking of 'AND' instead of 'OR' is the right way to do things... You can be an effective and sustainable land care manager while using organics AND chemicals...

I am trying to walk the middle ground but when I do.. the organic folks are the ones with the condemning judgments... the chem guys just simply say... good job...

This forum when someone says use a chemical they usually get ribbed for it...
In the pesticide forum when someone suggests an organic control... it usually gets supported...

Which one has the "superior attitude" and is judgmental in this case?

rant off...

DeepGreenLawn
10-05-2008, 08:37 PM
eh... they are just sold out for their way of doing things and try to show that chems aren't the ONLY way to go... but I agree... some of them could chill out... I think Tree has a good approach on things...

Yeah mine is about the size of a 2 car garage but it's luxury compared to the plastic tent I spent a winter in.

I would love to put life on hold and live in a plastic tent for a year... my best friend, who is an idiot but still a good friend, growing up ran into a TON of problems such as drugs, prison, etc, etc... he ended up in the woods under a big slab of rock angled to a side... kept him dry and he had a creek to bath in... I went out to see him almost every day and was almost jealous of the situation...

You learn and see and experience soo much out in nature... maybe not on the side of a highway... but I am sure you know what I mean... I would love to spend a month in the woods... talk about clearing your mind! Just a night in the woods would be nice... I may have to do that...

muddstopper
10-05-2008, 09:07 PM
I feel I need to clarify my comments about molasses and E Coli.
It was not my intent to suggest that using molasses in your compost teas is wrong, even tho molasses will encourage E coli growth. My statements where meant to imply that the use of molasses by someone simply because it has been suggested as a microbe acellerator doesnt make it a safe product. More often than not, compost piles, as well as CT, is made by someone that isnt qualified to be doing the procedures without proper instructions. If you start with E coli contaminated compost in your tea breweer and then add molasses, your Ct is most likely going to contain E coli bacteria. You then spray this on your garden or lawn and you endup with a Ecoli contaminated food or grass.

I will touch on TG comments about using human manures. In the times before chemical ferts, all manures where returned to the soil, man and animal. This in turn was reused by the plants to grow those giant Redwood trees. In todays moden world, human waste is basicly either flushed into a giant sewer system to be treated and then dumped into our drinking water, dumped into a landfill or sold as milogranite, or similar products. Rual homes use septic fill areas to bury the waste deep in the soil. In either case, the manures are not being returned to the fields that the food crops where grown. The very field crops that the manures where derived from in the first place. For this reason, it is a must that crop areas have nutrients replaced due to the removal of crops. Any generalized fertility management program that relies only on adding compost, or chemical fertilizers, without reguards to the nutrient content that was removed or for the purpose of replaceing those missing nutrients, is destined to fail. As for healthy forests, it has been estimated that over 90% of all forest are growing in nutrient deficient soils because of the removal of forest products. Ask any forester or logger and they will tell you that the quality of the timber in second and third cut forest now harvested isnt any where near the quality of timber in the old growth forest. Why are all the trees dieing? air pollution, disease, nope, poor nutrition.

treegal1
10-05-2008, 09:11 PM
eh... they are just sold out for their way of doing things and try to show that chems aren't the ONLY way to go... but I agree... some of them could chill out... I think Tree has a good approach on things...



I would love to put life on hold and live in a plastic tent for a year... my best friend, who is an idiot but still a good friend, growing up ran into a TON of problems such as drugs, prison, etc, etc... he ended up in the woods under a big slab of rock angled to a side... kept him dry and he had a creek to bath in... I went out to see him almost every day and was almost jealous of the situation...

You learn and see and experience soo much out in nature... maybe not on the side of a highway... but I am sure you know what I mean... I would love to spend a month in the woods... talk about clearing your mind! Just a night in the woods would be nice... I may have to do that...


it gets better than that, we just spent a first night in the new sea side shanty, its like the size of a walk in closet, the roof is metal and makes sounds when it rains, the ac is a no go so for now its just some heat Vs the ocean breeze, the breeze wins every time. and with the realestae market in the dumps its a good thing to sit back and watch it all go down, save a heap of do rae me and have the time of my life doing it, king philly wants to sleep on the beach, I had to put my foot down, until dad came home with the tent and said lets go!!! also have been looking for a house boat to beach out at the farm, that way when and if it floods the house just floats, phill wants to make the hull out of concrete with recycled fiber and aggregate. yes you can only be truly free if you have nothing to lose. when we lived in ga we started off in a yurt, and then built a nice little house, all from pine beetle killed trees, mostly saw-en local in canton, I was trading baby sitting for milk and eggs, and the freezer was almost full of deer. I also worked some nights at the sixes rd waffle house to get money for school, phill worked all day and night, 4 days a week in forestry and then 7 nights a week doing on call for a service company, the other 3 days he would get dead trees and make fire wood, sold it at the old country store before they made a kroger, I think it was a GA super at the time. we had to work hard but it seemed so simple then....

DeepGreenLawn
10-05-2008, 09:26 PM
one day....

There is an OLD park buried in Bridgemill, this is a new MASSIVE, as in thousands, literally, of homes, community built. My mom went there as a kid, use to be a Delta run place for their employees to get away to. It is now a cool park where they took all the old boat storage and started renovating them into "cabins." It is the coolest thing... I am going to have one of those one day... that will be my get-a-way.

When I was in college a bunch of friends went down to key west and camped out on the beach for a week... I was poor and had to work so I wasn't able to make it... but they said it was a blast... I was out of school by the next year and lost touch...

amazing what can happen in a years time...

treegal1
10-05-2008, 09:41 PM
yes this year has gone fast and had lots of changes in it, so far mostly good ones..............

DeepGreenLawn
10-05-2008, 09:52 PM
a year ago today...

Me and my wife were at home... I was working doing inspections for a company who cleaned restaraunt hoods, and I had just found out my wife was prenant... no plans on starting a business... just trying to save as much money as possible until the deadline...

Since then...

My wife has a new car, sold the sports car, still in the same house, started a new business, about lost it due to an overflow of volume, finally got the business under control, now have it running smoothely... Bella was born, wife stopped working, money got SUPER tight, baby grew like a weed... so on and so forth...

Year ago I had just found out I was having a baby... now I have a 5 month old baby girl at home who is sitting up on her own and will probably be scooting around in another week or so...

Imagining what things will be like in another year... especially with the baby, is impossible... walking, talking, etc etc... wow...

treegal1
10-05-2008, 10:11 PM
just wait, one day you will get the question about why/why dont, I have a peckr, or why does the cat make red stuff if I hit it, do all animals go out there butt, do fish pee. is it ok to eat sand, does the moon have air, why cant we walk on water, is he dead? trust me dont make any special efforts to get them to talk, you will only want them to be quiet in a few years.LOLOL.

DeepGreenLawn
10-06-2008, 09:17 AM
talking I can handle... its the walking I dread... it is nice being able to put her down somewhere and know she will be there when I get back, her neice is a few months older and this is no longer the case...

DUSTYCEDAR
10-06-2008, 09:57 AM
WAIT TILL THEY CAN MAKE A FIST AND SWING
black eyes yes what fun
kick me in the jimmy they do that out of nowhere
then there r 4 and want you to pick them up and they weigh more then a Buick when did that happen
good luck with the ankle bitter