Chickity Doo Doo

[Itsthesoil]

Anyone use poultry manure?

[ICT Bill]

It better be COMPOSTED chicken manure otherwise it will be so hot it will burn

The answer is yes

It brings up a thought I have had lately

If you ban P (Phos) in an area or statewide you have effectively banned a sustainable input of nutrients, poultry manures composted or not will always have P

It will leave a smell (not terrible but noticeable), especially if it rains (or irrigation) soon after application

[White Gardens]

It better be COMPOSTED chicken manure otherwise it will be so hot it will burn

Yes, very hot, it needs to be composted down some before use.

My grandfather grew tomatoes on an old chicken pen (after a year of dormancy) and I haven't been able to reproduce the same results. The tomatoes were massive, and tasted awesome.

[Itsthesoil]

Yes, Chickity Doo Doo is a poultry manure product. It uses a patented composting process. The smell is almost a non issue from the sample I got.

According to their web site, available N is at 40%, and of course, that is naturally slow release. It is exempt from P regs because it is a natural product and the amount is low.

It's small pellets can be broadcast in regular spreaders. From what I have read, there may be less or no need for top dressing and compost tea.

I was sent a 2008 University of Wisconsin research paper and Chickity Doo Doo was the best of the organics tested and very close to synthetics in 'green-up' performance.

[JWTurfguy]

Bill made a good point about Zero-phos laws that have been going into affect in various states. Currently, Westchester County, NY, is considering a bill that would ban phosphorus (with the exception being lawns that had soil tests showing a P-deficiency) whether the phosphorus comes from organic, synthetic, or mined sources. In other words, common organic ferts like Milorganite, Poconite, Cockadoodle-doo (sorry, not sure of their exact name, but I think most people know who I'm talking about), etc would be banned under the law if it's passed in its present form. Apparently the non-leaching properties of organic ferts don't matter to the guys and gals who actually get to make the laws here.

So, in Westchester County, if you're following an organic program, it would be wise to consider alternatives to manure-based ferts, since they may not be around for much longer in this area. A good alternative might be PlanTTech's 8-0-4 (no sludge). Not only does it not have phosphorus, the nutrients are chelated with organic lipo-proteins so that more of it actually makes it to the turf. Costs more than manure, but works better and is in no threat of being taken off the market. Also, since there is no sludge, it doesn't have to go through the same heat-drying process that biosolids like Milorganite go through, essentially sterilizing the product that people assume would have so many beneficial bacteria in it. And, of course, no manure means no heavy-metal content that builds up over time in the soil after repeated applications. You can check out the 8-0-4 label at www.gemstarr.com if you click on the tab for Granular ferts.

New York guys: drop me a private message if you're interested.

Shane

[treegal1]

P mobility in soil= all lies!!!!!! it does not happen in that great of a #'s!!!

[ICT Bill]

I heard recently that the cocka doodle doo company has gone out of business. They had great distribution, I used to see it everywhere.

I wonder what happened to them??

TG are you saying that phosphorous does not leech. All over the chesapeake bay algae blooms, from what we are told is from P leeching, are reeking havoc on the wildlife. Algae covers the water and blocks sunlight, no grasses for small fish and crabs to hide in. When it dies off the oxygen levels plunge creating dead zones

there is an absolute scramble in the area to educated and reduce nutrient loads in rivers and creeks

[Itsthesoil]

Anyone who does a soil test knows that P is often already high, at least in my area in the Midwest. According to University research I have read, the P thing is highly overrated and those doing the regulating are gradually becoming aware of this. Example:
"Phosphorus(P) applied as fertilizer does not run-off turf according to numerous University peer-reviewed research studies throughout the
U.S. The migration of phosphorus from fertilizer granules is typically measured inmillimeters, not in inches. Phosphorus is a natural occurring mineral. Regardless of its source, mined phosphate or organic sources, the phosphorus is tied up by clay particles in the soil by the strong charge of the elemental P. It remains relatively insoluble and unavailable to the plant. Very little is available for plant growth at any one time. Because phosphorus is bound so tightly to soil particles, the amount of P that exists in soil solution (soil water) rarely exceeds 1.0 ppm (Black, 1968). As a consequence of
this well-known property, P neither leaches nor runs off in solution. The only way for phosphorus to "run-off" lawns is when soil particles erode and the nutrient P is carried on the soil particle to which it is attached."

[DUSTYCEDAR]

i wonder what big company is also in the Chesapeake basin?
i care about the bays i fish them but i dont believe its just the lawn fert that is the problem

[Itsthesoil]

http://www.chickitydoodoo.com/

I'm a landscape contractor and a consumer, too. Regardless, I'm concerned, as many readers are, that organic$ mean higher costs. The reasons may be lower manufacturing capacities and suppliers that take advantge of 'bleeding' edge product grow cycles. If organics are to go mainstream, costs have to be similar to status quo.

[Kiril]

P mobility in soil= all lies!!!!!! it does not happen in that great of a #'s!!!

I would be concerned about it in your area TG, or any sandy/low CEC soil.

[Kiril]

As a consequence of this well-known property, P neither leaches nor runs off in solution.

Anything in solution has the potential to leach.

The only way for phosphorus to "run-off" lawns is when soil particles erode and the nutrient P is carried on the soil particle to which it is attached."

Or ferts on hardscapes being washed into storm drains. On a lawn by lawn basis, probably not that big of a deal .... but add it all up .... it then becomes a big deal.

[Itsthesoil]

The issue may be P mobility. Soil run-off may be the primary concern and not organic P that is applied to lawns.

[Kiril]

http://www.chickitydoodoo.com/

I'm a landscape contractor and a consumer, too. Regardless, I'm concerned, as many readers are, that organic$ mean higher costs. The reasons may be lower manufacturing capacities and suppliers that take advantge of 'bleeding' edge product grow cycles. If organics are to go mainstream, costs have to be similar to status quo.

Solution .... don't buy into the "organic" product hype. They are not much better than the synthetics they attempt to replace (from a conservation view). Use locally produced compost or produce your own, either on your own property or your clients.

[Itsthesoil]

"Anything in solution has the potential to leach."

What the studies are pointing to is that P leaching is non issue - too small.

"Or ferts on hardscapes being washed into storm drains. On a lawn by lawn basis, probably not that big of a deal .... but add it all up .... it then becomes a big deal."

Simple remedy and something that should be practiced by any lawn care company. Thoroughly blow the overspread into the grass. I have been doing that for 15+ yeras as general practice.

[Kiril]

The issue may be P mobility. Soil run-off may be the primary concern and not organic P that is applied to lawns.

Why not "organic" P as well? It also has the potential of ending up in storm drains as well as leaching through the profile.

[Itsthesoil]

"Solution .... don't buy into the "organic" product hype. They are not much better than the synthetics they attempt to replace (from a conservation view). Use locally produced compost or produce your own, either on your own property or your clients."

Organics can be 'hyped' for sure. Evidence, experience, research have conclusively proven that organic vs synthetics have significant differences both for our planet and our health. The question is ease of application, the time required, and the costs. I'd love to grow and process my own coffee and cocao - not practical. Same for lawn compost.

[DUSTYCEDAR]

compost takes space lots of space some day i hope to have more space to do it

[Itsthesoil]

"Why not "organic" P as well? It also has the potential of ending up in storm drains as well as leaching through the profile."

However the P is derived, the huge majority of it comes from the soil that washes into a body of water and not from the water run off.

[Kiril]

What the studies are pointing to is that P leaching is non issue - too small.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/field/news/croptalk/2003/ct_1103a11.htm

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/phosphorous_migration.html

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/64/3/1090.pdf

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/4/1429.pdf

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/69.pdf

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/370.pdf

[Kiril]

However the P is derived, the huge majority of it comes from the soil that washes into a body of water and not from the water run off.

Explain the difference. Also consider where your soil P is going to be highest in your traditionally over fertilized scenario.

[Kiril]

"Solution .... don't buy into the "organic" product hype. They are not much better than the synthetics they attempt to replace (from a conservation view). Use locally produced compost or produce your own, either on your own property or your clients."

Organics can be 'hyped' for sure. Evidence, experience, research have conclusively proven that organic vs synthetics have significant differences both for our planet and our health. The question is ease of application, the time required, and the costs. I'd love to grow and process my own coffee and cocao - not practical. Same for lawn compost.

So even if the net costs (environmentally speaking) are higher than the net benefits, then it is still acceptable because of the perception that if it is organic then it MUST be better?

[Itsthesoil]

"Explain the difference. Also consider where your soil P is going to be highest in your traditionally over fertilized scenario."

P correctly applied to a lawn, and what P is already there in the soil, does its damage when the soil itself is washed and reaches the body of water. P is attached to the soil particles and not to the water molecules.

[Kiril]

P is attached to the soil particles and not to the water molecules.

Interesting. So no chance of soluble forms of P ending up in bodies of water? Also, could you explain how P attaches itself to a water molecule?

[Itsthesoil]

"So even if the net costs (environmentally speaking) are higher than the net benefits, then it is still acceptable because of the perception that if it is organic then it MUST be better?"

A comprehendsive, correctly done, and proven organic lawn program, including deep tine aeration, significantly improves the soil texture, profile, and structure over time versus a synthetic program. That normally provides for fewer input requirements and better available moisture retention and less water run off. 10-12 inches of healthy soil acts as a efficient and effective filtering and nutrition richer system with little or no soil particle transfer.

[Itsthesoil]

"Interesting. So no chance of soluble forms of P ending up in bodies of water? Also, could you explain how P attaches itself to a water molecule?"

The vast majority of phosphorus originates from soil erosion, detergents (before the bans), septic systems and runoff from farmland. Lawns are P sources, however, the amount is very, very small. Also, most of the P becomes attached to the soil particles once water has disolved the P and releasing it to the soil.

[Kiril]

A comprehendsive, correctly done, and proven organic lawn program, including deep tine aeration, significantly improves the soil texture, profile, and structure over time versus a synthetic program. That normally provides for fewer input requirements and better available moisture retention and less water run off.

No argument there, although not really sure what a "proven organic lawn program" is.

10-12 inches of healthy soil acts as a efficient and effective filtering and nutrition richer system with little or no soil particle transfer.

Really .... publications to support the underlined section?

[Kiril]

Lawns are P sources, however, the amount is very, very small. Also, most of the P becomes attached to the soil particles once water has disolved the P and releasing it to the soil.

How small is small? How many lawns does it take before a significant impact is seen in surface waters?

I have not seen any studies done with respect to residential and commercial property runoff/leaching of P, so I am curious where exactly you are getting your information.

I am still curious how P attaches itself to a water molecule?

[Itsthesoil]

"Really .... publications to support the underlined section?"

The assumption is we are talking about a existing residential lawn with full turf development and significantly developed root zones. An organic centered lawn installation and lawn care program (granted, there are variables in organic programs) does produce a healthier soil and turf.

The difference is significant. In one subdivision I work in, the builder (Was 3rd largest in Chicago area until they BK'd) used only 20 cu yds of topsoil over heavily compacted clay before sod installation for an 8000 SF lawn. Across the street, I used >140 cu yds of topsoil on fractured clay subsoil. The difference is huge.

Most of the U turf sites like , MN, WI, Cornell, Rutgers, Clemson, Texas A&M, MI, PA, MI State, etc. are loaded with documentation and research white papers that will support the importance of a 10-12inch biologically alive and healthy soil. Soil test will show the needs including clay, sand, loam % as well as organic levels.

[Kiril]

The assumption is we are talking about a existing residential lawn with full turf development and significantly developed root zones. An organic centered lawn installation and lawn care program (granted, there are variables in organic programs) does produce a healthier soil and turf.

That is a HUGE assumption, and I daresay an inaccurate one. You are still not addressing my questions.

Most of the U turf sites like , MN, WI, Cornell, Rutgers, Clemson, Texas A&M, MI, PA, MI State, etc. are loaded with documentation and research white papers that will support the importance of a 10-12inch biologically alive and healthy soil. Soil test will show the needs including clay, sand, loam % as well as organic levels.

That was not the question. Where is your supporting documentation that P leaching/runoff does not occur in organically managed residential/commercial landscapes and that there is little or no particle transfer in a well developed soil?

Beyond this, what percentage of urban landscapes are current managed properly, much less organically?

[Itsthesoil]

"How small is small? How many lawns does it take before a significant impact is seen in surface waters?"

"I have not seen any studies done with respect to residential and commercial property runoff/leaching of P, so I am curious where exactly you are getting your information."

EPA and USDA white papers have that info. Soil divisions.

"I am still curious how P attaches itself to a water molecule?"

P binds tight to soil particles (roots take it in from the soil) after it is disolved by moisture and attaches to soil. Not sure why you are asking that.

[Itsthesoil]

"That was not the question. Where is your supporting documentation that P leaching/runoff does not occur in organically managed residential/commercial landscapes and that there is little or no particle transfer in a well developed soil?"

Never said that. It is minimal vs other sources. That's all.

"Beyond this, what percentage of urban landscapes are current managed properly, much less organically?"

Questions, I can't answer. The goal would be healthier soil structure, texture, and profile for all lawns. That's all.

My suggestion is you Google on the above or buy into MSU's turf resource library. The docs are there. I have 'stacks' both electronic and paper.

[Kiril]

EPA and USDA white papers have that info. Soil divisions.

I'm not going to do your leg work dude. Links to specific studies please.

P binds tight to soil particles (roots take it in from the soil) after it is disolved by moisture and attaches to soil. Not sure why you are asking that.

Oh right, misread on the water molecule thing .... missed the "not" ... sry.

Still, there are many different types of P in a soil, including soluble ones. Furthermore, just because P is not in solution does not mean it cannot leach/runoff.

Roots take up P from the soil solution and via mycorrhizal associations if they exist.

[Kiril]

My suggestion is you Google on the above or buy into MSU's turf resource library. The docs are there. I have 'stacks' both electronic and paper.

As I said in my previous post, if you are going to make claims such as you have in this thread, you best be prepared to back them up. Telling me to find support for your assertions ain't gonna fly here.

Beyond that, perhaps I can interest you in my 40 GB or more PDF library of journal articles related to issues concerning land management and environmental research?

Also, you are still avoiding my questions. I don't believe you are going to find anyone on this forum that will disagree that an organically managed soil is better than the alternative, so why do you keep avoiding answering my questions and going back to this "safe" response?

[Itsthesoil]

"I'm not going to do your leg work dude. Links to specific studies please."

Contractors, as with most good businesses, hold close 'competitive advantages.' I've done the leg work. I have a MS from one of the world's best Universities and have attended multiple recent turf schools and seminars -more scheduled. You can, and have done, the same.

"Also, you are still avoiding my questions. I don't believe you are going to find anyone on this forum that will disagree that an organically managed soil is better than the alternative, so why do you keep avoiding answering my questions and going back to this "safe" response?"

Not sure of this above. All answered. My only key point is the landscape and lawn care industry needs to pay more attention to the soil health and remedy that first versus feeding 'drugs' to the turf. Soil health has multiple variables and interpretations. Some basics are 'base' level, however.

Most USA lawn and landscape contractors are first focused on green $$$ profit and less on 'Go Green' sustainable processes, materials and services. In Europe and Canada there are more strict regs. Westchester County may be leading the way for other counties and states.

You may be reading more into what has been written. If everyone on this forum agreed that an "organically managed soil is better than the alternative," the transition would be easier. I'm not sure they do.

[treegal1]

Contractors, as with most good businesses, hold close 'competitive advantagesand there you just separated yourself from the rest............

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phosphate+mobility+in+soil&hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

Kiril would you chose one for me to read, me and mine here are in debate over this now........

[Kiril]

You may be reading more into what has been written..

No, I don't think so. You posted (http://www.lawnsite.com/showpost.php?p=2823934&postcount=8) a quote from an unknown source stating P has no potential for leaching or runoff in solution. P can and does exist in solution.

Another example.

What the studies are pointing to is that P leaching is non issue - too small.

What studies? What type of soils? What type of P inputs? Historical P inputs? Current P status of the soil? Depth to groundwater? Depth to confining layer? Etc.........

You see, it is general statements like the above that is the foundation for misinterpretation and gives reason to just ignore the potential problems.

The studies I posted not only demonstrated that P is indeed leachable (both soluble and solid forms), but that it varies widely based on many factors such as irrigation, climate, soil type, soil structure, type of input that contains the P, etc.... To make a statement that simple says P cannot be a problem .... well, is just wrong.

Personally I despise unsubstantiated/unneeded regulation, but in all honesty, I have not seen any information that supports little or no contribution to non-point source P pollution from residential and commercial properties, either posted in this thread, or in any publications. In all fairness, I also haven't seen anything that supports it either.

When you are measuring elevated P levels in your surface and ground water .... well it has to be coming from somewhere. My point, regardless of the amount of P that a single site contributes to the total load, when you take that site and multiply it by 10,000 or more, seems to me the seemingly insignificant problem just became a potentially VERY significant problem.

No offense dude, but if you can't at least reference a couple of abstracts that supports little or no P leaching/runoff from residential/commercial sites as you have suggested/stated, then I can only assume such a study does not exist.

I will say, I am not trying to start chit here, but there is WAY too much "information" that gets slung around in these forums without little or no substantiation.

[Kiril]

and there you just separated yourself from the rest............

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phosphate+mobility+in+soil&hl=en&safe=off&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

Kiril would you chose one for me to read, me and mine here are in debate over this now........

Why not use the six I posted? There really is no right or wrong answer. As I have stated many times, issues like these need to be assessed on a site by site basis. Yes P can leach and runoff .... how much before it becomes significant source of pollution or simply just a waste of resources needs to be determined at the site in question.

As I said before, in your neck of the woods, I would be concerned given your sandy soils.

[treegal1]

I would be concerned given your sandy soilsyes I am,

P mobility in soil= all lies!!!!!! it does not happen in that great of a #'s!!!
this was said in sarcasm

[JDUtah]

Not sure if Kiril reposted it, but in the N availability thread Kiril linked a presentation that suggested organic P is more mobile than mineral P. Thought I would mention it. If you need I can find it again.

[Smallaxe]

We had this discussion last year, but back then, there was a general consensus that P doesn't "LEACH" out of the soil. Education has put a new spin on the research.
Anyways, now we have to believe that P leaches through the soil, to be educated. Whatever.

http://www.lenntech.com/phosphorus-cycle.htm
Phosphorus moves slowly from deposits on land and in sediments, to living organisms, and than much more slowly back into the soil and water sediment. The phosphorus cycle is the slowest one of the matter cycles that are described here.
Phosphorus is most commonly found in rock formations and ocean sediments as phosphate salts. Phosphate salts that are released from rocks through weathering usually dissolve in soil water and will be absorbed by plants. Because the quantities of phosphorus in soil are generally small, it is often the limiting factor for plant growth. That is why humans often apply phosphate fertilizers on farmland. Phosphates are also limiting factors for plant-growth in marine ecosystems, because they are not very water-soluble.

[Itsthesoil]

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...ct_1103a11.htm
Agriculture and theoretical - not lawns or actual. Canada, not USA.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/ph...migration.html
Broken link

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/64/3/1090.pdf
Agriculture

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/4/1429.pdf
Agriculture

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/69.pdf
Agriculture

http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/370.pdf
Agrilculture

[Smallaxe]

Does anyone think we could help Stinky Lake Syndrome by cleaning out the rotted OM - that is - filling up the shorelines - and then - that might not promote algae growth quite as much? :laugh:

Oh NO, That is from P dissolved invisibly in the surface waters. How many years in the University in USA to believe that?

Asia and Europe does a cool Joe Friday on this subject: "Just the facts, Ma'am".

[Kiril]

All links are valid, you cannot cut and past links on this site unless you right click and select copy link location or something like that.

As far as the links go, I don't know if they are Ag related or not .... does it matter?
Does P act differently in soils and runoff in a residential/commercial setting than it does in an Ag or municipal waste setting?

@smallaxe. Generally speaking, P has limited mobility in most soils. This CANNOT be extended to NO mobility.

[Smallaxe]

...@smallaxe. Generally speaking, P has limited mobility in most soils. This CANNOT be extended to NO mobility.

If the Stinky Lake Law addressed that concept, and people discussed that concept at that level I would be glad to participate.

I say we address the problem. Not the odd minute bit of source that has no bearing on the problem.

The problem is obvious to all by noticing which waterways tend to stink of algae and which do not.

However, I do not see a P element bound in the soil , being wrestled loose by water droplts perculating through and carried into the springs, wells, or reseviors.
I do see clay and other sediments sitting atop the melting snow, even today. Good chance there is some P attached to that brown tide.
If it melts quickly it can easily be carried to open water. That is what I call erosion.

Erosion as opposed to leaching. :)

[Itsthesoil]

There are precious few real studies and research on specific contributors to phosphorous in lakes. Migrating soil directly into the body of water, industrial pollution, cleaning fluids, duck and geese poop, and leaves from trees all may contribute much more P than organic based fertilizers. And phosphorus from organic sources tends to leach slower into water than synthetic fertilizer.

Back to the original premise. A less compacted, moisture retaining, biologically active 10 to 12 inches of soil under a dense and actively growing healthy turf that is managed by a more organic and real IPM program is my contractor business plan for 2009. I hope potential customers see the main benefit of lower inputs, including no phosphorus. (If that is what the soil test recommends.)

[Smallaxe]

There are precious few real studies and research on specific contributors to phosphorous in lakes. Migrating soil directly into the body of water, industrial pollution, cleaning fluids, duck and geese poop, and leaves from trees all may contribute much more P than organic based fertilizers. And phosphorus from organic sources tends to leach slower into water than synthetic fertilizer. ...

There was a colostate.com link I saved from last year that had reported its research on that fully 80% of the P makes its way to the surface waters through storm sewers of neighboring cities. In the form of grass clippings, leaves, etc.

That link did not work today. error 404 don't you know. Evidently that idea is no longer politically correct. :)

But in response to your statement - actually yes - there are many research projects all over the world addressing this relatively simple concept.
I had learned a lot researching that particular topic. Not that it does a bit of good, because people are going to believe what they want to believe. Its all about spin and when I see what this spin is doing to our water resources it just bugs me.

Anyways, good luck with that. :0

[Itsthesoil]

"As far as the links go, I don't know if they are Ag related or not .... does it matter?"
What we all have seen politicians who champion a cause based on a misapplied premise or data that is not specific to the issue. That may be happening with the lawn care P bans. I'm with you, or at least, I would have been before I hung around engineers and scientists. They want specific proof as you know. My bet is, w/o that evidence, and in relation to other sources, the total volume of organic based P used in lawns that migrates to bodies of water is statistically insignificant.

"Does P act differently in soils and runoff in a residential/commercial setting than it does in an Ag or municipal waste setting?"

Scientists would probably want to study and prove or disprove a hypothesis. The total volume is the issue to me. I believe, as stated above, applied organic based P is an insignificant source of water pollution. A weeks worth of duck poo may indeed add more P to the lake than a tear's worth of Chickity Doo Doo applications to a lawn next to the lake!

[treegal1]

Does anyone think we could help Stinky Lake Syndrome by cleaning out the rotted OM - that is - filling up the shorelines - and then - that might not promote algae growth quite as much? :laugh:

Oh NO, That is from P dissolved invisibly in the surface waters. How many years in the University in USA to believe that?

Asia and Europe does a cool Joe Friday on this subject: "Just the facts, Ma'am".AXE, the SH*T goes down hill? so we NEED to drag it out of the lake and put it on top again, then we have a use for it!!!! if only the metals.......

[Smallaxe]

AXE, the SH*T goes down hill? so we NEED to drag it out of the lake and put it on top again, then we have a use for it!!!! if only the metals.......

Exactly... But if we don't have a USE for it because of the metals...Heavy metals??... R U suggesting we leave the rotted matter, or sh*t, in the water?

[Smallaxe]

... Scientists would probably want to study and prove or disprove a hypothesis. The total volume is the issue to me. I believe, as stated above, applied organic based P is an insignificant source of water pollution. A weeks worth of duck poo may indeed add more P to the lake than a tear's worth of Chickity Doo Doo applications to a lawn next to the lake!

All the residence on the Lakes were so happy to see the ducks and geese come back to the lakes and be semi-domesticated and put out corn for them. UNTIL. They became populated. More poo on the shoreline in one afternoon than even TGCL would put down in a month.

We're not sure why there seems to be a lot of algae in this goose barnyard area. I agree with you , except, - Do you think scientist can figure it out??? :laugh:

[Kiril]

My bet is, w/o that evidence, and in relation to other sources, the total volume of organic based P used in lawns that migrates to bodies of water is statistically insignificant.

As you pointed out in your previous post, due to what is probably a significant lack of any real studies with regard to residential/commercial inputs, we cannot really know where all the inputs of P are coming from. Does this now mean that a lack of a study/evidence can be extended to mean "statistically insignificant"? Are findings in other sectors of the market insignificant in this case .... I don't believe so. In some cases I would say absolutely yes ... research in Ag or other related industries cannot be reasonably correlated with landscapes, but here we are talking about minerals, erosion, leaching, and soils here. Providing the conditions are similar, the results can be correlated to some extent.

Is it a stretch to say a significant contributor is landscapes .... I don't believe so. This is primarily due to both research I have reviewed and personal observations of how people manage landscapes ... in effect poorly. Does this mean you will do the same ... no. Does this mean the majority of the landscapes will still be managed poorly .... yes. I cannot in good conscious, with the knowledge I have, ignore the potential for significant P inputs from landscapes. If P pollution is a problem in a specific area then ALL the possible sources need to be considered as contributing.

Personally, I don't know if I support or don't support the intended legislation as I do not know all the facts surrounding it. What I do know is that people who make management decisions based on assumptions and inaccurate/no data are just as bad as the politicians who make laws based on political platforms and special interests vomit.

Scientists would probably want to study and prove or disprove a hypothesis. The total volume is the issue to me. I believe, as stated above, applied organic based P is an insignificant source of water pollution. A weeks worth of duck poo may indeed add more P to the lake than a tear's worth of Chickity Doo Doo applications to a lawn next to the lake!

Once again you are making assumptions based on what .... opinion or facts? Blanket statements are just as dangerous in the hands of the general public as they are in the hands of politicians.

I will probably agree with your assessment for responsible use/application of OM in most cases, but not in all. Fact of the matter is, if there is sufficient P in the soil then why do people need to apply it? Nature came up with a wonderful invention called mycorrhizal fungi to extract P from soils (among other things), perhaps we should take notice?

I see the same thing with iron and other nutrients as well. People all too often relate an above ground symptom to mean a below ground deficiency, when in many cases a simple change in management practices would alleviate the problem.

The biggest problem I see surrounding limiting P inputs with regard to OM is that it will be difficult at best to meet any legal requirements without severely limiting your sources. This IMO would be largely detrimental, BUT if the "organic" inputs are just as damaging to the environment as their synthetic brother, well ..................

And lastly, since your new ... my stance on turf in almost every case is ..... substantially reduce or simply GET RID OF IT!

Compost does a soil good!

[treegal1]

Exactly... But if we don't have a USE for it because of the metals...Heavy metals??... R U suggesting we leave the rotted matter, or sh*t, in the water?not at all!! its time to bioremediate!, then use the stuff!!!

[Itsthesoil]

Agree with most all of Kiril's thoughtful responses.

My spot, as a landscape contractor with 'Committed to organic processes and materials' as a motto is to do just that. Then try to build examples and easy to communicate stories of work that the general consumer can connect to and embrace, some immediately and some over time.

Also, organic should cost about the same as the mainstream status quo services do now with a process that decreases inputs and costs as the lawn and landscape become more organically / biologically active.

No studies needed to see that organic suppliers / services are often overpriced and less effective than the hype. Scare tactics about synthetically produced inputs are sometimes used. An example are the 'heavy metals' hype in biosolids.

Often, the end value of 'organics' is just not there. As a result, people resist jumping in. This is especially true now in our down economy.

As a contractor, I also need to help influence customer expectations to the point where they think a 'shaggier' lawn with a few weeds is the new status versus that perfectly manicured one.

http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/a4.php

[dishboy]

Agree with most all of Kiril's thoughtful responses.

My spot, as a landscape contractor with 'Committed to organic processes and materials' as a motto is to do just that. Then try to build examples and easy to communicate stories of work that the general consumer can connect to and embrace, some immediately and some over time.

Also, organic should cost about the same as the mainstream status quo services do now with a process that decreases inputs and costs as the lawn and landscape become more organically / biologically active.

No studies needed to see that organic suppliers / services are often overpriced and less effective than the hype. Scare tactics about synthetically produced inputs are sometimes used. An example are the 'heavy metals' hype in biosolids.

Often, the end value of 'organics' is just not there. As a result, people resist jumping in. This is especially true now in our down economy.

As a contractor, I also need to help influence customer expectations to the point where they think a 'shaggier' lawn with a few weeds is the new status versus that perfectly manicured one.

http://www.joe.org/joe/2008february/a4.php

The lawn need not be "shaggier" IMO as a thick lawn shades the soil as does a long lawn.

[Itsthesoil]

"The lawn need not be "shaggier" IMO as a thick lawn shades the soil as does a long lawn."

Good point. I just have run across a lot of people who mow too short and want a golf course look in their lawns. A low cut putting green is max 'stressed out." The input needs are incredible.

[Smallaxe]

not at all!! its time to bioremediate!, then use the stuff!!!

Convincing people to get the stuff out of the water is going to be difficult enough.
Convincing them to 'bioremediate' - good luck with that.

Chances are the brainiacs will want to run it all through a sewage treatment plant. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Smallaxe]

"The lawn need not be "shaggier" IMO as a thick lawn shades the soil as does a long lawn."

Good point. I just have run across a lot of people who mow too short and want a golf course look in their lawns. A low cut putting green is max 'stressed out." The input needs are incredible.

There are certain people that I will not try to sell the organic idea to. The type of people who abuse the cultural practices of good turf care top the list.
Getting involved with some people is only going to make my new business look bad.

[Itsthesoil]

Getting involved with some people is only going to make my new business look bad.

Good motto to start off the year with. The more experienced and smarter contractors are masters at knowing the keepers and the toss outs - and after only talking with them for a few minutes.

[Kiril]

Good motto to start off the year with. The more experienced and smarter contractors are masters at knowing the keepers and the toss outs - and after only talking with them for a few minutes.

You have to at least make the attempt. I have clients that have been VERY slow to change, but they have. When you start giving up on people, IMO you are giving up on the very reason you do this. That being said, there are some that are just not worth the effort. :cry:

[Itsthesoil]

I have clients that have been VERY slow to change, but they have. When you start giving up on people, IMO you are giving up on the very reason you do this.

The difference is those that are reasonable to work with and pay you. Working with them over the long term can be rewarding when it comes to organic lawn care. It's the non logical, trouble making, slow or no payers that need an exit plan before getting started with them.

[Smallaxe]

There are certain people that I will not try to sell the organic idea to. The type of people who abuse the cultural practices of good turf care top the list.
Getting involved with some people is only going to make my new business look bad.

When people see success and the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, they come to you.
When you beg them for a chance to try it, and the results may not be as good, and it may take longer, and be a bit more expensive, bla,bla,bla.

Then you want to - MAKE SURE - that this client doesn't have the water on 4-7 times a week , all seaon long. Doesn't mow it once a month down to 2 inches. Doesn't pickup a bag of Scotts when , he thinks, it needs a boost. etc. etc.

Clients will not be choosing me - I will be choosing them. I want at least 1 good lawn to do, but I hope I don't have to lower my standards too much to get one new client for organic line.

[muddstopper]

Well since this thread started about chicken poop, I thought i would post pic of my sources.

[muddstopper]

I move the coop weekly and this is what they leave behind.

[Itsthesoil]

Could you collect the coop poop and send it to one of my new organic customers here in SE WI?

[Smallaxe]

Chicken poop is heavy metals , dude.

Just like anything else that passes through a human's life.

Too dangerous for yard grass.

[Kiril]

I move the coop weekly and this is what they leave behind.

Dude, what are those ..... skid marks? ;)

[muddstopper]

double post

[muddstopper]

Those streaks are skid maks from the skid the coop is mounted on. There are 10 chickens in the coop and they pick the grass clean in a week. I think you can see my tractor in this pic. I have a cable attached to the skid to pull with. I plan on adding some wheels when I get a chance.

The coop is sitting on my veggie garden. You can see the tall ryegrass covering part of the area. The bare spots are where the coop has already been.

[muddstopper]

Chicken poop is heavy metals , dude.

Just like anything else that passes through a human's life.

Too dangerous for yard grass.


Surely you jest. The only metals in chicken poop come from the feed they eat. Usually corn and soybean based, and in my case, from the grass I planted. Are you saying that corn and soybeans contain to much heavy metals to be using on a lawn?

To dangerous for yard grass??, I think one would have to consider the source. Poultry farms house large flocks of birds. All kinds of diseases, pesticides and everything else. I wouldnt want to use that on my lawn. If properly composted, all those diseases and pesticides become non issues. I just ordered 15 tons of chicken poo that I intend to compost and use for top dressing. the finished product wont be all chicken poo. I intend to also use horse poo, wood chips, and crop residues.

[Smallaxe]

Surely you jest. The only metals in chicken poop come from the feed they eat. Usually corn and soybean based, and in my case, from the grass I planted. Are you saying that corn and soybeans contain to much heavy metals to be using on a lawn?

To dangerous for yard grass??, I think one would have to consider the source. Poultry farms house large flocks of birds. All kinds of diseases, pesticides and everything else. I wouldnt want to use that on my lawn. If properly composted, all those diseases and pesticides become non issues. I just ordered 15 tons of chicken poo that I intend to compost and use for top dressing. the finished product wont be all chicken poo. I intend to also use horse poo, wood chips, and crop residues.

Yes, I was jesting. I remember a post from b4 that indicated chicken poop was too contaminated to use on lawns. :)

[muddstopper]

Yes, I was jesting. I remember a post from b4 that indicated chicken poop was too contaminated to use on lawns. :)

Whew, I thought so, but with all the poo flying around on this forum lately, who knows. Its the bull$hit being posted lately thats too toxic.