PDA

View Full Version : Here's a new one!!!! (Fert Question)


ultracut518
10-15-2009, 11:29 AM
I was fertilizing a lawn today with 24-0-11 Lesco fert, when my cutomer came out of her house and asked me about the health affects of fertilizer. At first I thought she was confused and talking about pesticides since that is a common question I get asked, but she knew what she was talking about and she was indeed talking about fertilizer!!! She was not asking about environmental affects, but affects to human health. Completely caught me of guard!!! What should I tell her, as I have no idea? Thanks

cpa4t9r
10-15-2009, 11:40 AM
Uhhhhhhhhhh - like don't eat it lady.....or roll around in it.....or wash your car with it...

Had a buddy who was a chemical engineer that worked for PCI? (Potash something...1st or 2nd largest supplier) and a lot of the cars of the EEs ended up with no paint on the roofs/hoods....nice.

I spool up something about runoff and groundwater but tell her that's not an issue with your expert application methodology i.e. why she pays you. Environmental effects = health effects - at least that's what the gub'ment says.

Kiril
10-15-2009, 11:47 AM
I spool up something about runoff and groundwater but tell her that's not an issue with your expert application methodology i.e. why she pays you. Environmental effects = health effects - at least that's what the gub'ment says.

Now that is amusing. :rolleyes:

Ric
10-15-2009, 12:24 PM
Now that is amusing. :rolleyes:

Kiril

But the customer believe it.:)

I don't want to bring on the Tree Huggers but sometimes we have to smootes the customer. My standard answer is to explain their water softener uses Potassium Chloride which is a Element of Fertilizer I use. Now the fact is I actually use SOP. But In order to give the customer what they want we sometimes have to give them what they don't want. They don't want insects or chemicals, But without one they get the other. It is a catch 22.

Kiril
10-15-2009, 12:40 PM
FYI, I was commenting on the "your expert application methodology" when the OP is applying 24-0-11 in WI right now.

Not to mention I have seen plenty of "experts" who don't know the first thing about soil and plant fertility ..... witness this site.

JWTurfguy
10-15-2009, 01:16 PM
Just give the customer a copy of the MSDS. I like to include a copy of the MSDS for Lysterine as well just to provide a little perspective when they freak out at some of the scary language in the fert MSDS.

JWTurfguy
10-15-2009, 01:22 PM
I'm attaching the MSDS for Lysterine. Enjoy.

jbturf
10-15-2009, 08:52 PM
thanks for the info JW, thats a great idea
to have that on hand for the customer to compare,

btw- i dont think i will ever think of lysterine the same again
j/k

mdlwn1
10-15-2009, 08:56 PM
Just tell her its no different than drinking a tall glass of urin....with a straight face.

Grandview
10-16-2009, 08:36 AM
FYI, I was commenting on the "your expert application methodology" when the OP is applying 24-0-11 in WI right now.

Not to mention I have seen plenty of "experts" who don't know the first thing about soil and plant fertility ..... witness this site.

Another arrogant comment. There is nothing wrong with 24-0-11. It can be used anytime of the year. Its fertilizer. Applied at 3-4 pounds/M gives the University recommended rate of N for this time of the year. I suppose you have some peer reviewed literature that says 24-0-11 is not good for Wisconsin in October.

mdlwn1
10-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Another arrogant comment. There is nothing wrong with 24-0-11. It can be used anytime of the year. Its fertilizer. Applied at 3-4 pounds/M gives the University recommended rate of N for this time of the year. I suppose you have some peer reviewed literature that says 24-0-11 is not good for Wisconsin in October.

"it can be used any time of year".........I dont even know what to say other than you misspoke or should find a different line of work.

phasthound
10-16-2009, 09:17 AM
Just tell her its no different than drinking a tall glass of urin....with a straight face.

In the past, urine was used as a rinse to brighten teeth. We're smarter now, we use bleach. :)

Smallaxe
10-16-2009, 09:37 AM
24-0-11 is hopefully some % slow release, but even then I wouldn't use it from mid-June to mid-August.
3-4 pounds for a season sounds good. More than 2 pounds per app. sounds extremely wasteful. N is very volatile and moves easily through the soil.

Kiril
10-16-2009, 10:06 AM
Another arrogant comment. There is nothing wrong with 24-0-11. It can be used anytime of the year. Its fertilizer. Applied at 3-4 pounds/M gives the University recommended rate of N for this time of the year. I suppose you have some peer reviewed literature that says 24-0-11 is not good for Wisconsin in October.

Don't need peer reviewed literature. What are your growth rates like right now? What are the chances that the applied N (an SCU (http://www.lesco.com/NoCompression/GetData.aspx?Type=ProdResource&ID=5047&.pdf) in this case) will actually be taken up by the plant before it goes into complete dormancy? What are the chances the applied N will either run-off or leach out of the effective root zone before the plant is able to use it?

Given soil temps (http://agwx.dtn.com/imgjsp/showmap.jsp?map=ne_soil_temps_640&key=ECDE008A-CE99-4F69-9320-7B298E79B9E8) in WI are in the high 30's and low 40's right now, and the nitrification process (eg. nitrogen cycle) is essentially stopped at these temperatures .... how exactly is the N supplied as a SCU supposed to become plant available even if the turf were actively growing?

rcreech
10-16-2009, 10:22 AM
Kiril,

See you didn't have anything to say after reading my post last week!

That is what I thought! :)

Have a beautiful "natural" day!

Kiril
10-16-2009, 10:26 AM
Kiril,

See you didn't have anything to say after reading my post last week!

That is what I thought! :)

Have a beautiful "natural" day!

Rod, contrary to what you want to believe, I do not follow the posts in this forum, especially not yours. The only time I actually post here is when I see something of interest in the new posts list.

rcreech
10-16-2009, 11:01 AM
Rod, contrary to what you want to believe, I do not follow the posts in this forum, especially not yours. The only time I actually post here is when I see something of interest in the new posts list.

I guess 9100 posts in 2 years....does mean you don't spend much time on here! :dizzy:

You know you read it! :)

Kiril
10-16-2009, 11:02 AM
You know you read it! :)

Actually I didn't, nor do I care to.

Runner
10-16-2009, 02:44 PM
Holy COW! 9000 posts! Anyone who has that many posts on ANY forum for ANY amount of time needs to find some other things to do! That's absurd!

rcreech
10-16-2009, 04:27 PM
Holy COW! 9000 posts! Anyone who has that many posts on ANY forum for ANY amount of time needs to find some other things to do! That's absurd!

What kind of idiot would have that many....Runner!

rcreech
10-16-2009, 04:28 PM
What kind of idiot would have that many....Runner!

Atleast it took you 9 years to post 12,000 posts!

DUSTYCEDAR
10-16-2009, 04:44 PM
wow some things to think about

Ric
10-16-2009, 05:00 PM
Holy COW! 9000 posts! Anyone who has that many posts on ANY forum for ANY amount of time needs to find some other things to do! That's absurd!

Come on Runner

At least 9 of Kirils posts have been worth reading.

rcreech
10-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Come on Runner

At least 9 of Kirils posts have been worth reading.

Ric,

That is a stretch I think!

Kiril
10-16-2009, 09:50 PM
LOL .... ain't yall country folk funny.

Always amusing ........... the posts that follow when I provide information the "experts" of this forum had no idea about.

Continue on little boys

Kiril
10-16-2009, 09:55 PM
Holy COW! 9000 posts! Anyone who has that many posts on ANY forum for ANY amount of time needs to find some other things to do! That's absurd!

Guess that is the difference between you and me. It doesn't take me 10 minutes to type a word ...... I can type with two hands.

integrityman
10-16-2009, 09:59 PM
Just tell her its no different than drinking a tall glass of urin....with a straight face.

Snicker. Dehydrated piss!

rcreech
10-16-2009, 10:07 PM
LOL .... ain't yall country folk funny.

Always amusing ........... the posts that follow when I provide information the "experts" of this forum had no idea about.

Continue on little boys

You better feel again, if you are calling me a "little boy".

Have you ever seen a "little boy" need a tire tool to put on a condom?

I DON'T THINK SO! :weightlifter:

Runner
10-16-2009, 11:31 PM
Guess that is the difference between you and me. It doesn't take me 10 minutes to type a word ...... I can type with two hands.

...And please know,....I was just having fun...That's why I posted that, was because of my amount of posts. I know Riggle got it, because he even called me idiot. Now THAT's more like it! Thatfits right in - just like all my friends around HERE that call me idiot...:rolleyes::drinkup:

Runner
10-16-2009, 11:38 PM
Guess that is the difference between you and me. It doesn't take me 10 minutes to type a word ...... I can type with two hands.

...And please know,....I was just having fun...That's why I posted that, was because of my amount of posts. I know Riggle got it, because he even called me idiot. Now THAT's more like it! Thatfits right in - just like all my friends around HERE that call me idiot...:rolleyes::drinkup:

foreplease
10-17-2009, 12:29 AM
Jeez, I bet they add up fast when you double post :)

Kiril
10-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Jeez, I bet they add up fast when you double post :)

..... and when you make a post like this .......

Kiril
10-17-2009, 10:42 AM
.... or this .......

Kiril
10-17-2009, 10:43 AM
or even perhaps ............ like this

Kiril
10-17-2009, 10:43 AM
better slow down ...... I am almost at my daily average .... and in only a couple of minutes

Ric
10-17-2009, 12:09 PM
What kind of idiot would have that many....Runner!

Atleast it took you 9 years to post 12,000 posts!

Making numbers meaning full means looking at them from all angles. Sure Runner has 12,000 posts in 9 years BUT That works out to the following.

Average posts per Day

Runner 3.67 posts per day, total of 12,000 (all worth reading).

And Kiril??

Kiril 10.88 posts per day, Total of 9,000 (and maybe 9 posts total worth Reading)

Now either That is a lot of Information or a bunch of Wasted Ban width. From what I have read of Kiril's 10.88 posts a day, that is a lot of wasted Ban width. But what the Heck the sponsors are paying for it any way. A Hit is a Hit when in comes down to statistics for Marketing advertisement cost.


Kiril

A little Heart to Heart Buddy. Sure I rag on people also, But I also actually have posted a lot of Technical Info over the years. May be a lot more back when LS was getting started. If you are going to tell LS members how much smarter you are. Then prove it by posting some actual technical Information.

Now I throw a challenge out to you. Start a Thread about How To Read a Label and where different information can be found on that label. And do it in a kind and caring way to actually help the same people you think are Idiots. We might actually gain some respect for you, which at present time does not exists.

Kiril
10-17-2009, 12:29 PM
Ric ....

I could give a rats ass if you respect me or not, nor do I care what you consider an "informative" post. Fact of the matter is I have posted hordes of information with respect to managing soils and irrigation. The fact that you have not seen these posts does not mean they do not exist.

The professionals on this forum should know that applying a high N fertilizer when plant growth and the nitrogen cycle is essentially dormant/stopped is not only irresponsible, but borders on theft. How about instead of sitting in your ivory tower and casting "judgment" on me, why don't respond to the information I have posted in this thread? If you take issue with this information .... then present a logical argument that demonstrates what I have said is incorrect. Or is all you can do is count posts and throw insults?

BTW ... if you can't read a label then you are in the wrong biz and need to go back to school and learn how to read.

Kiril
10-17-2009, 12:36 PM
Look .... 6 posts in a matter of minutes. Almost at my daily average, and all in one thread to boot ..... woohoo. Now the post counting yahoos have some more ammo.

phasthound
10-17-2009, 12:50 PM
Kiril,

Listen to Ric's advice "do it in a kind and caring way to actually help the same people". You'll find more people might listen rather than attack you.

And Ric, take your own advice too. You old curmudgeon! :)

Kiril
10-17-2009, 01:15 PM
Kiril,

Listen to Ric's advice "do it in a kind and caring way to actually help the same people". You'll find more people might listen rather than attack you.

There is no such thing as "kind and caring" on this forum. Anyone perceived as an "outsider" will be attacked for questioning what someone posts or their practices .... and it doesn't matter how it is presented. What amazes me is that someone else didn't question the timing of the application.

You wanna bet that if I had presented this as follows, nothing would have changed and the Ric's and Rod's of the forum would have proceeded with their childish attacks?

I am curious why you are applying a high N fertilizer at this time of year? The N in a SCU will most likely not be utilized by the turf with your current soil temperatures, and will essentially be lost before it can be utilized.

Barry .... fact of the matter is, the "inner circle" of this forum will attack me regardless of what I post, or how I post it. Even when Ric "agrees" with something I have said, he always includes some type of insult. The only post that will ever be acceptable from me in this forum is no post at all.

Ric
10-17-2009, 02:43 PM
Kiril,

Listen to Ric's advice "do it in a kind and caring way to actually help the same people". You'll find more people might listen rather than attack you.

And Ric, take your own advice too. You old curmudgeon! :)

Slow Dog

At least you don't accuse me of not posting information. But is makes a point that people remember so much longer when I rag them with the information.

Kiril

I am pretty sure I know how to read label and a MSDS. But their are a lot of Members here who don't have the first clue. Just think how much fun you could have using a link to that thread to pimp people even better than you do now. Why with nothing to do and all day to do it your post count may jump to 15 a day in no time at all.

BTW I would double post this but I am already embassied that I have as many posts as I do.

rcreech
10-17-2009, 05:17 PM
Here ya go Kiril.

I know you read this on the other thread....but just in case! :)

http://farmindustrynews.com/seed/0901-seed-traits-handle-efficiently/index.html

Now you tell me if added traits are diffent from the original plant genetics!

I am NOT going to leave this alone becasue YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG ALL ALONG!


The reason you get blasted on here is becasue you think you know more then everybody.

I have heard you argue with in Missouri about their soils and you live in Ca. If they live in Missouri...they probably know a little bit more about their own soils then you do even if you did read it on the internet!

Just like you arugeing with me on corn genetics and added traits. Other then what you read...you don't have a clue about plant genetics and added traits....but you will argue with us that do until you are blue in the face.

Enjoy!

dishboy
10-17-2009, 05:23 PM
Even when Ric "agrees" with something I have said, he always includes some type of insult. The only post that will ever be acceptable from me in this forum is no post at all.


Ric could not be insulting you as he no longer comes here:rolleyes:

Kiril
10-17-2009, 08:14 PM
I know you read this on the other thread....but just in case! :)

:laugh: Keep on digging Rod. Amazing how you find new ways of showing your ignorance every day. And you have a "college degree too .... sad.

I have heard you argue with in Missouri about their soils and you live in Ca. If they live in Missouri...they probably know a little bit more about their own soils then you do even if you did read it on the internet!

News to me .... but even if that were true, I guess you have never heard of a soil survey.

Just like you arugeing with me on corn genetics and added traits. Other then what you read...you don't have a clue about plant genetics and added traits

And there is about 40 pages of thread that prove you wrong .... but who is counting .... oh wait, you are. Just can't wrap your head around it can you Rod. Surprising how you like to demonstrate your ignorance to the world over and over and over again.

rcreech
10-18-2009, 09:57 AM
So you continue to play stupid....but act like I am. If you still think that added traits and genetics are the "same" you are a fool just as everyone on here already suspects!

Thats cool!

Glad you finally read it!

Thanks,
RC

rcreech
10-18-2009, 10:09 AM
Kiril,

I got an idea!

Instead of you starting to throw crap and call names (as we all do)...lets talk facts!

So you disagree with the WHOLE ag industry that plant genetics and added traits are differerent?

I have shown no ignorance at all...just the facts from over here!

That is my point...you sit out it CA and think you know more then the whole corn belt!

Kiril
10-18-2009, 10:31 AM
So you continue to play stupid....but act like I am. If you still think that added traits and genetics are the "same" you are a fool just as everyone on here already suspects!

As with the last "proof" you submitted, not only does the article not support your "beliefs", it in fact disproves it.

You need to review the discussion and the science once again Rod.

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=257648

And FYI, CA is the nations #1 agricultural producer and GE is not limited to corn.

Kiril
10-18-2009, 11:12 AM
You can get the same exact hybrid as GMO or NON GMO. Both plants have the same characteristics it is just the GMO has added plant protection!

Which is it Rod? Either a GMO has is 100% GE (genetically engineered) traits or not.

The plant traits now are 100% GMO. They have nothing to do with plant characteristics.

Also, how can you still not understand that traits are a part of the phenotype after I posted the definitions?

Biological Trait:

A trait is a distinct variant of a phenotypic character of an organism that may be inherited, environmentally determined or somewhere in between.

Phenotype:

A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, or behavior. Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and possible interactions between the two.

Adding the GMO to the plant doesn't change its characteristics!!!!!

Really Rod. Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to understand how environmental pressure can change the phenotype, lets review what you have said in this thread because you can't even agree with your own statements.

The plant genetics is what determined by a cross between two parents. This is what determines the plants characteristics such as yeild, standability, drought tolerance, disease tolerance and grain quality ect.

but then ......

Rod on GMO with respect to drought tolerance.

2012 is when the Nitrogen managment and drought gene is coming to the market.

Rod on GMO with respect to yield and insect resistence.

But out west and even here it is VERY important to have traits (GMO corn) to keep ECB and RW from taking it out.

Rod on GMO and plant genetics.

The plant genetics has nothing to do with GMO's.

Do we need more?

I put it as plain and simple as it can be for corn.

Good for you Rod, you can copy information off a sell card, doesn't mean you have even the most rudimentary knowledge of what is going on with the plant or the process by which these GEO's are created. You just buy/sell based on the GE features of the seed.

Here Rod, let us try this again. Some definitions from one of your beloved seed producers so you might understand.

http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/glossary.asp

Genetic engineering
The technique of removing, modifying or adding genes to a living organism. Also referred to as gene splicing, recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology or genetic modification.

Genetically engineered organism (GEO)
A new variety of plant produced using traditional plant breeding techniques, supplemented by the insertion of a specific beneficial gene or genes. Also referred to as genetically modified organism (GMO).

Genetic modification
The technique of removing, modifying or adding genes to a living organism via genetic engineering or other more traditional methods. Also referred to as gene splicing, recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology or genetic engineering.

Recombinant DNA technology
Procedures used to join DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms). Under appropriate conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can be introduced into a cell and copy itself (replicate), either as an independent entity (autonomously) or as an integral part of a cellular chromosome.

Genetically modified organism (GMO)
A new variety of plant produced using traditional plant breeding techniques, supplemented by the insertion of a specific beneficial gene or genes. Also referred to as genetically engineered organism (GEO).

Variety
A group of individual plants that is uniform, stable and distinct genetically from other groups of individuals in the same species.


How about from the USGS?

http://biology.usgs.gov/genetics_genomics/glossary_g.html

genetic engineering
A process in which an organism’s genes are selectively modified, often through splicing DNA fragments from different chromosomes or species, to achieve a desired result.


Not enough for you to piece it together Rod? How about a review on how to create a transgenic plant.

http://www.cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/how.html

Plant genetics are all the same....just differnet triats! That is the fact jack! Plant traits...and its parent genetics are two different ducks!

Geez, you can't even get it straight in the same sentence.

Plant traits...and its parent genetics are two different ducks!

So the "parent genetics" have nothing to do with the "child" trait? :hammerhead:

Come on Rod, can you not even attempt to understand what a biological trait is? I posted the definitions, perhaps I need some agrobacterium to insert this knowledge into your brain?

What I have stated is 100% accurate....and a person that has probably never planted an acre of corn in his life is disputing it!

Actually Rod, I have clearly demonstrated what you have posted is not even close to being accurate. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with farming corn, but instead plant breeding and biology.

So lets review.

Your final position is that a phenotypic expression of a transgenic trait is not, nor will ever be, a plant character?

You also assert that when breeding two genetically distinct plants (hybrid + event-donor/GMO), there will be absolutely no change in the plant genotype or phenotype regardless of breeding program, introduced/integrated traits, or environmental pressures?

----------------------------------------

The above are some highlights from the thread linked in post #47

rcreech
10-18-2009, 11:20 AM
Thank you for your TEXTBOOK explanation!

Now for the REAL WORLD!

What started this whole discussion was PARENT GENENTICS vs ADDED TRAITS.

Yes they are totally different!

Genetics make yield and triats protects it!

That is all there it too it!

Call Becks or any seed company and they will tell you that! But you think you know more then them (HAHAHA) so you won't.

Just wanted to share the ADDED TRAITS article I just read! :)

Kiril
10-18-2009, 11:22 AM
A compilation of information sources posted in the original thread for you Rod.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/how.html

http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/summary.htm

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/7/00.07.02.x.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/

http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/47/Supplement_3/S-164.pdf

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/geneticeng.html

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/51/suppl_1/487.pdf


More Good Stuff From Rod..........

Plant genetics are all the same....just differnet triats! That is the fact jack! Plant traits...and its parent genetics are two different ducks!

The plant genetics has nothing to do with GMO's.

The plant traits now are 100% GMO. They have nothing to do with plant characteristics.

I simply stated that adding GMO's (or more specifically the triats) don't affect the plants genetic characteristics!

Yes they are genetically altering the plant...but as they insert the gene, they are not changing the plant genetics!

Traits do not make yield they only protect the plant.


http://www.google.com/patents?id=yDMDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=5,023,179#PPA15,M1

Transgenic plants with enhanced agronomic traits (http://www.freshpatents.com/Transgenic-plants-with-enhanced-agronomic-traits-dt20080619ptan20080148432.php?type=description)
USPTO Application #: 20080148432
Agent: Monsanto Company


As used herein an “enhanced trait” means a characteristic of a transgenic plant that includes, but is not limited to, an enhance agronomic trait characterized by enhanced plant morphology, physiology, growth and development, yield, nutritional enhancement, disease or pest resistance, or environmental or chemical tolerance. In more specific aspects of this invention enhanced trait is selected from group of enhanced traits consisting of enhanced water use efficiency, enhanced cold tolerance, increased yield, enhanced nitrogen use efficiency, enhanced seed protein and enhanced seed oil. In an important aspect of the invention the enhanced trait is enhanced yield including increased yield under non-stress conditions and increased yield under environmental stress conditions. Stress conditions may include, for example, drought, shade, fungal disease, viral disease, bacterial disease, insect infestation, nematode infestation, cold temperature exposure, heat exposure, osmotic stress, reduced nitrogen nutrient availability, reduced phosphorus nutrient availability and high plant density. “Yield” can be affected by many properties including without limitation, plant height, pod number, pod position on the plant, number of internodes, incidence of pod shatter, grain size, efficiency of nodulation and nitrogen fixation, efficiency of nutrient assimilation, resistance to biotic and abiotic stress, carbon assimilation, plant architecture, resistance to lodging, percent seed germination, seedling vigor, and juvenile traits. Yield can also affected by efficiency of germination (including germination in stressed conditions), growth rate (including growth rate in stressed conditions), ear number, seed number per ear, seed size, composition of seed (starch, oil, protein) and characteristics of seed fill.

Increased yield of a transgenic plant of the present invention can be measured in a number of ways, including test weight, seed number per plant, seed weight, seed number per unit area (i.e. seeds, or weight of seeds, per acre), bushels per acre, tonnes per acre, tons per acre, kilo per hectare. For example, maize yield may be measured as production of shelled corn kernels per unit of production area, for example in bushels per acre or metric tons per hectare, often reported on a moisture adjusted basis, for example at 15.5 percent moisture. Increased yield may result from improved utilization of key biochemical compounds, such as nitrogen, phosphorous and carbohydrate, or from improved responses to environmental stresses, such as cold, heat, drought, salt, and attack by pests or pathogens. Recombinant DNA used in this invention can also be used to provide plants having improved growth and development, and ultimately increased yield, as the result of modified expression of plant growth regulators or modification of cell cycle or photosynthesis pathways. Also of interest is the generation of transgenic plants that demonstrate enhanced yield with respect to a seed component that may or may not correspond to an increase in overall plant yield. Such properties include enhancements in seed oil, seed molecules such as tocopherol, protein and starch, or oil particular oil components as may be manifest by an alterations in the ratios of seed components.
.
.
.
B. Selection for Increased Yield

Many transgenic plants of this invention exhibit improved yield as compared to a control plant. Improved yield can result from enhanced seed sink potential, i.e. the number and size of endosperm cells or kernels and/or enhanced sink strength, i.e. the rate of starch biosynthesis. Sink potential can be established very early during kernel development, as endosperm cell number and size are determined within the first few days after pollination.

Much of the increase in corn yield of the past several decades has resulted from an increase in planting density. During that period, corn yield has been increasing at a rate of 2.1 bushels/acre/year, but the planting density has increased at a rate of 250 plants/acre/year. A characteristic of modern hybrid corn is the ability of these varieties to be planted at high density. Many studies have shown that a higher than current planting density should result in more biomass production, but current germplasm does not perform. well at these higher densities. One approach to increasing yield is to increase harvest index (HI), the proportion of biomass that is allocated to the kernel compared to total biomass, in high density plantings.

Effective yield selection of enhanced yielding transgenic corn events uses hybrid progeny of the transgenic event over multiple locations with plants grown under optimal production management practices, and maximum pest control. A useful target for improved yield is a 5% to 10% increase in yield as compared to yield produced by plants grown from seed for a control plant. Selection methods may be applied in multiple and diverse geographic locations, for example up to 16 or more locations, over one or more plating seasons, for example at least two planting seasons to statistically distinguish yield improvement from natural environmental effects. It is to plant multiple transgenic plants, positive and negative control plants, and pollinator plants in standard plots, for example 2 row plots, 20 feet long by 5 feet wide with 30 inches distance between rows and a 3 foot alley between ranges. Transgenic events can be grouped by recombinant DNA constructs with groups randomly placed in the field. A pollinator plot of a high quality corn line is planted for every two plots to allow open pollination when using male sterile transgenic events. A useful planting density is about 30,000 plants/acre. High planting density is greater than 30,000 plants/acre, preferably about 40,000 plants/acre, more preferably about 42,000 plants/acre, most preferably about 45,000 plants/acre. Surrogate indicators for yield improvement include source capacity (biomass), source output (sucrose and photosynthesis), sink components (kernel size, ear size, starch in the seed), development (light response, height, density tolerance), maturity, early flowering trait and physiological responses to high density planting, for example at 45,000 plants per acre, for example as illustrated in Table 10 and 11.

rcreech
10-18-2009, 11:25 AM
Read the definition you have above.

It says they use TRADITIONAL PLANT BREEDING TECHNIQUES and INSERT the specific gene (which is what we call traits).

I agree 100% with the definition below.

So you have PLANT GENENTICS and ADDED TRAITS.

What don't you understand!!!


Genetically modified organism (GMO)

A new variety of plant produced using traditional plant breeding techniques, supplemented by the insertion of a specific beneficial gene or genes. Also referred to as genetically engineered organism (GEO).

rcreech
10-18-2009, 11:29 AM
A compilation of information sources posted in the original thread for you Rod.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/how.html

http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/summary.htm

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/7/00.07.02.x.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/

http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/47/Supplement_3/S-164.pdf

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/geneticeng.html

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/51/suppl_1/487.pdf


More Good Stuff From Rod..........














http://www.google.com/patents?id=yDMDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=5,023,179#PPA15,M1

Transgenic plants with enhanced agronomic traits (http://www.freshpatents.com/Transgenic-plants-with-enhanced-agronomic-traits-dt20080619ptan20080148432.php?type=description)
USPTO Application #: 20080148432
Agent: Monsanto Company


As used herein an “enhanced trait” means a characteristic of a transgenic plant that includes, but is not limited to, an enhance agronomic trait characterized by enhanced plant morphology, physiology, growth and development, yield, nutritional enhancement, disease or pest resistance, or environmental or chemical tolerance. In more specific aspects of this invention enhanced trait is selected from group of enhanced traits consisting of enhanced water use efficiency, enhanced cold tolerance, increased yield, enhanced nitrogen use efficiency, enhanced seed protein and enhanced seed oil. In an important aspect of the invention the enhanced trait is enhanced yield including increased yield under non-stress conditions and increased yield under environmental stress conditions. Stress conditions may include, for example, drought, shade, fungal disease, viral disease, bacterial disease, insect infestation, nematode infestation, cold temperature exposure, heat exposure, osmotic stress, reduced nitrogen nutrient availability, reduced phosphorus nutrient availability and high plant density. “Yield” can be affected by many properties including without limitation, plant height, pod number, pod position on the plant, number of internodes, incidence of pod shatter, grain size, efficiency of nodulation and nitrogen fixation, efficiency of nutrient assimilation, resistance to biotic and abiotic stress, carbon assimilation, plant architecture, resistance to lodging, percent seed germination, seedling vigor, and juvenile traits. Yield can also affected by efficiency of germination (including germination in stressed conditions), growth rate (including growth rate in stressed conditions), ear number, seed number per ear, seed size, composition of seed (starch, oil, protein) and characteristics of seed fill.

Increased yield of a transgenic plant of the present invention can be measured in a number of ways, including test weight, seed number per plant, seed weight, seed number per unit area (i.e. seeds, or weight of seeds, per acre), bushels per acre, tonnes per acre, tons per acre, kilo per hectare. For example, maize yield may be measured as production of shelled corn kernels per unit of production area, for example in bushels per acre or metric tons per hectare, often reported on a moisture adjusted basis, for example at 15.5 percent moisture. Increased yield may result from improved utilization of key biochemical compounds, such as nitrogen, phosphorous and carbohydrate, or from improved responses to environmental stresses, such as cold, heat, drought, salt, and attack by pests or pathogens. Recombinant DNA used in this invention can also be used to provide plants having improved growth and development, and ultimately increased yield, as the result of modified expression of plant growth regulators or modification of cell cycle or photosynthesis pathways. Also of interest is the generation of transgenic plants that demonstrate enhanced yield with respect to a seed component that may or may not correspond to an increase in overall plant yield. Such properties include enhancements in seed oil, seed molecules such as tocopherol, protein and starch, or oil particular oil components as may be manifest by an alterations in the ratios of seed components.
.
.
.
B. Selection for Increased Yield

Many transgenic plants of this invention exhibit improved yield as compared to a control plant. Improved yield can result from enhanced seed sink potential, i.e. the number and size of endosperm cells or kernels and/or enhanced sink strength, i.e. the rate of starch biosynthesis. Sink potential can be established very early during kernel development, as endosperm cell number and size are determined within the first few days after pollination.

Much of the increase in corn yield of the past several decades has resulted from an increase in planting density. During that period, corn yield has been increasing at a rate of 2.1 bushels/acre/year, but the planting density has increased at a rate of 250 plants/acre/year. A characteristic of modern hybrid corn is the ability of these varieties to be planted at high density. Many studies have shown that a higher than current planting density should result in more biomass production, but current germplasm does not perform. well at these higher densities. One approach to increasing yield is to increase harvest index (HI), the proportion of biomass that is allocated to the kernel compared to total biomass, in high density plantings.

Effective yield selection of enhanced yielding transgenic corn events uses hybrid progeny of the transgenic event over multiple locations with plants grown under optimal production management practices, and maximum pest control. A useful target for improved yield is a 5% to 10% increase in yield as compared to yield produced by plants grown from seed for a control plant. Selection methods may be applied in multiple and diverse geographic locations, for example up to 16 or more locations, over one or more plating seasons, for example at least two planting seasons to statistically distinguish yield improvement from natural environmental effects. It is to plant multiple transgenic plants, positive and negative control plants, and pollinator plants in standard plots, for example 2 row plots, 20 feet long by 5 feet wide with 30 inches distance between rows and a 3 foot alley between ranges. Transgenic events can be grouped by recombinant DNA constructs with groups randomly placed in the field. A pollinator plot of a high quality corn line is planted for every two plots to allow open pollination when using male sterile transgenic events. A useful planting density is about 30,000 plants/acre. High planting density is greater than 30,000 plants/acre, preferably about 40,000 plants/acre, more preferably about 42,000 plants/acre, most preferably about 45,000 plants/acre. Surrogate indicators for yield improvement include source capacity (biomass), source output (sucrose and photosynthesis), sink components (kernel size, ear size, starch in the seed), development (light response, height, density tolerance), maturity, early flowering trait and physiological responses to high density planting, for example at 45,000 plants per acre, for example as illustrated in Table 10 and 11.

The reason for increased yield is because of PLANT PROTECTION...not from improving the plants original genetices.

If you take the same exact plant and add traits to it...you may increase yield if attacked by insects...but if no insect pressure then they will yield the same. So no the traits do not add yield...they PROTECT yield~!
I can tell you don't have a clue so I am not going to argue...just wanted to make a point.

If the TRAITS didn't protect yield then why would we pay a premium for them.

You don't understand that plant genetics and traits are seperate!

That is the problem.

Call Dekalb, Becks, Pioneer or any other seed company and they will explain it to you.

phasthound
10-18-2009, 11:32 AM
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Kiril
10-18-2009, 11:45 AM
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Exactly. Rod continues on with this petty argument even when it has been shown beyond any shadow of doubt that he simply doesn't understand. Really, who in their right mind makes a contradictory statement in the same post as the referenced Monsanto patent. WOW! :dizzy:

phasthound
10-18-2009, 11:49 AM
Exactly. Rod continues on with this petty argument even when it has been shown beyond any shadow of doubt that he simply doesn't understand. Really, who in their right mind makes a contradictory statement in the same post as the referenced Monsanto patent. WOW! :dizzy:

This was meant for both of you.
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Kiril
10-18-2009, 11:50 AM
This was meant for both of you.
:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Thanks Dad :waving:

phasthound
10-18-2009, 12:02 PM
Thanks Dad :waving:

Now, both of you go stand in the corner for an hour. :)

Kiril
10-18-2009, 12:07 PM
The reason for increased yield is because of PLANT PROTECTION...not from improving the plants original genetices.

If you take the same exact plant and add traits to it...you may increase yield if attacked by insects...but if no insect pressure then they will yield the same. So no the traits do not add yield...they PROTECT yield~!

I can tell you don't have a clue so I am not going to argue...just wanted to make a point.

And what point would that be? From your newest referenced "proof".

http://farmindustrynews.com/seed/0901-seed-traits-handle-efficiently/index.html

As seed companies gain more knowledge about the current traits, they're also finding that they can offer additional benefits. Bruce Battles, Syngenta agronomy marketing manager, says the company's Agrisure 3000 GT hybrids have proven their performance in areas with high rootworm pressure. “But what we're learning more and more is that as we move the traits outside of areas with not as much rootworm pressure, we are still seeing subtle yield increases,” he says.


Your statement is a direct contradiction to your reference ..... amusing isn't it?

Now, both of you go stand in the corner for an hour. :)

:cry: OK Dad

rcreech
10-18-2009, 12:31 PM
Yep...still stand behind it!

Genetics make yield and Traits protect it (hence saving yield which increases it when pressure).

Your definition above was totally right....the plant is breeded like normal and the TRAITS are then added to the plant.

That has been my point all along!

Thanks,
RC

Kiril
10-18-2009, 12:38 PM
Simply pointless ............ back to school you go.

rcreech
10-18-2009, 04:48 PM
And what point would that be? From your newest referenced "proof".

http://farmindustrynews.com/seed/0901-seed-traits-handle-efficiently/index.html

As seed companies gain more knowledge about the current traits, they're also finding that they can offer additional benefits. Bruce Battles, Syngenta agronomy marketing manager, says the company's Agrisure 3000 GT hybrids have proven their performance in areas with high rootworm pressure. “But what we're learning more and more is that as we move the traits outside of areas with not as much rootworm pressure, we are still seeing subtle yield increases,” he says.



DING DING DING....you just answered your own question!!!!!

"not as much rootworm pressure = and still seeing subtle yield increase"

That is exactly what we would expect to see. If there is still some insect pressure one would expect a subtle increase.

THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG...if there is NO insect activity there may be NO increase in yield. Hence the parent genetics is what determines yield...NOT TRAITS!

Traits don't increase yield...they protect it, hence increasing it when pests are present!


Phasthound,

I know this may be boring but I am not going to let the city boy from CA think he is right! Because he is so far out of his league it is funny!


If he would have called Becks 6 months ago he would already know this! :)

Kiril
10-18-2009, 08:22 PM
DING DING DING....you just answered your own question!!!!!

"not as much rootworm pressure = and still seeing subtle yield increase"

That is exactly what we would expect to see. If there is still some insect pressure one would expect a subtle increase.

THAT HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG...if there is NO insect activity there may be NO increase in yield. Hence the parent genetics is what determines yield...NOT TRAITS!

Traits don't increase yield...they protect it, hence increasing it when pests are present!

Rod, your capacity to misunderstand and misrepresent the written word is astounding. You can't even see the contradiction in your own statements.

Go on pretending you know what you are talking about while the rest of us snicker behind your back.

rcreech
10-18-2009, 10:14 PM
Rod, your capacity to misunderstand and misrepresent the written word is astounding. You can't even see the contradiction in your own statements.

Go on pretending you know what you are talking about while the rest of us snicker behind your back.


I'm not pretending!

You need to make a phone call big guy!

If I didn't think I was right I wouldn't tell you to call and check on my~!

Check on me and see what they say!

:)

JWTurfguy
10-19-2009, 08:40 AM
If I recall, this thread originally had something to do with 24-0-11, right?

Runner
10-19-2009, 12:43 PM
Yeah,...now all we have is a whole lot of urea in this peeing match...:rolleyes:

Kiril
10-19-2009, 01:01 PM
Yeah,...now all we have is a whole lot of urea in this peeing match...:rolleyes:

The only one pissing here is Rod ... and he is pissing into the wind trying not to get wet. :dizzy:

txgrassguy
10-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Kiril, depending upon the turf type, site use and soil characteristics adding a specific granular fertilizer in WI at this time of the year is not incorrect.
The idea being the fertilizer aids in the storage of carbohydrates which helps not only going into dormancy but emergence as well.
As I recall both Purdue and Penn State have published numerous papers on the positive effects of late season fertilization aiding in dormancy and emergence turf growth with out noxious side effects of certain types of turf pathogens increasing depending upon fertilizer source/composition.
Without seeing the label concerning the fert the original poster mentions a more concise opinion cannot be rendered but your blanket statement arguing in the negative is presumptuous.

PR Fect
10-19-2009, 08:14 PM
The professionals on this forum should know that applying a high N fertilizer when plant growth and the nitrogen cycle is essentially dormant/stopped is not only irresponsible, but borders on theft. How about instead of sitting in your ivory tower and casting "judgment" on me, why don't respond to the information I have posted in this thread? If you take issue with this information .... then present a logical argument that demonstrates what I have said is incorrect.



I do not know what is common on the left coast, but here in Wisconsin it is common and recommended buy the state university to apply up to two pounds of N per K of turf grass this time of year. 3 to 4 pounds per season and up to 2/3 of that N is to be applied in the fall (September/October) What is not common knowledge is that the root system continues to build into December even when ground temps reach 32 degrees. I welcome your input if it is sincere. But "Winterizer" for turf in Wisconsin, is put down for different reasons than it is in other parts of the country. PR

Kiril
10-19-2009, 09:32 PM
Kiril, depending upon the turf type, site use and soil characteristics adding a specific granular fertilizer in WI at this time of the year is not incorrect.
The idea being the fertilizer aids in the storage of carbohydrates which helps not only going into dormancy but emergence as well.
As I recall both Purdue and Penn State have published numerous papers on the positive effects of late season fertilization aiding in dormancy and emergence turf growth with out noxious side effects of certain types of turf pathogens increasing depending upon fertilizer source/composition.
Without seeing the label concerning the fert the original poster mentions a more concise opinion cannot be rendered but your blanket statement arguing in the negative is presumptuous.

I do not know what is common on the left coast, but here in Wisconsin it is common and recommended buy the state university to apply up to two pounds of N per K of turf grass this time of year. 3 to 4 pounds per season and up to 2/3 of that N is to be applied in the fall (September/October) What is not common knowledge is that the root system continues to build into December even when ground temps reach 32 degrees. I welcome your input if it is sincere. But "Winterizer" for turf in Wisconsin, is put down for different reasons than it is in other parts of the country. PR

Now I will ask you both to comment on the appropriate post.

Don't need peer reviewed literature. What are your growth rates like right now? What are the chances that the applied N (an SCU (http://www.lesco.com/NoCompression/GetData.aspx?Type=ProdResource&ID=5047&.pdf) in this case) will actually be taken up by the plant before it goes into complete dormancy? What are the chances the applied N will either run-off or leach out of the effective root zone before the plant is able to use it?

Given soil temps (http://agwx.dtn.com/imgjsp/showmap.jsp?map=ne_soil_temps_640&key=ECDE008A-CE99-4F69-9320-7B298E79B9E8) in WI are in the high 30's and low 40's right now, and the nitrification process (eg. nitrogen cycle) is essentially stopped at these temperatures .... how exactly is the N supplied as a SCU supposed to become plant available even if the turf were actively growing?


The guy is using a SCU with soil temps in the high 30' and low 40's. Are you guys going to go on record stating this is an acceptable practice? Now if he was applying something like ammonium nitrate you might have a point, assuming the turf is still actively growing .... but he did not use ammonium nitrate.

Rayholio
10-19-2009, 10:54 PM
LOL some things never change..

ted putnam
10-20-2009, 12:31 AM
LOL some things never change..

Ummm...Yea. :hammerhead: :dizzy:

FdLLawnMan
10-20-2009, 12:47 AM
I am in Wisconsin and have checking soil temps. As of today they are in the high 40's to low 50's. I, nor do the universities recommend an SCU for northern climates such as ours this time of year. Ammonium sulfate or urea are both acceptable fertilizers to apply tin the late fall. The 24-0-11 is a 50% slow release so the grass will utilize the urea in it right away and the SCU will most likely sit until next spring when it breaks down. So far this October the average temp is 10 to 15 degrees below normal so the soil temps are much lower than they normally would be.

Kiril
10-20-2009, 01:53 AM
I, nor do the universities recommend an SCU for northern climates such as ours this time of year.

I believe that is what I was getting at.

PR Fect
10-20-2009, 02:18 PM
I am in Wisconsin and have checking soil temps. As of today they are in the high 40's to low 50's. I, nor do the universities recommend an SCU for northern climates such as ours this time of year. Ammonium sulfate or urea are both acceptable fertilizers to apply tin the late fall. The 24-0-11 is a 50% slow release so the grass will utilize the urea in it right away and the SCU will most likely sit until next spring

Just so we are all on the same page. I agree. I believe the 24-0-11 that lesco sells is 70 percent slow release. We use 34-3 11 that is 20 percent slow release, and our last applications for the season will be going down this week. But getting back to the post, it is very interesting what the MSDS have to say about some very common things we all use. PR

Smallaxe
10-20-2009, 10:42 PM
Now I will ask you both to comment on the appropriate post.

The guy is using a SCU with soil temps in the high 30' and low 40's. Are you guys going to go on record stating this is an acceptable practice? Now if he was applying something like ammonium nitrate you might have a point, assuming the turf is still actively growing .... but he did not use ammonium nitrate.

OK, SCU is different from 'other' synthetic NPKs,, How???
Sounds like it is slow release. Big deal.

The proper botanical understanding of "Winterizer" is that it is the - N - that continues to store energy for the winter and spring. Yes, the Turf has stopped growing. It is also true, that no more Chlorophyll B appears to be forming during the latter half of October.
However, The grass is still green, so photosynthesis is likely taking place. Therefore, we are looking more closely at - "How plants prepare for harsh existance", as opposed, to the seemingly perpetual expansion of green.

Much the same way Wisconsonites prepare for harsh existance. Only instead of N we store up the Brandy. :)

Kiril
10-20-2009, 11:04 PM
OK, SCU is different from 'other' synthetic NPKs,, How??? Sounds like it is slow release. Big deal.

Damn boy ..... and you complain about P in the lakes from leaves. :dizzy:

The proper botanical understanding of "Winterizer" is that it is the - N - that continues to store energy for the winter and spring.

Go ahead and expand on this. Please, while you are at it include a reasonable estimate for how much carbohydrate energy is required by root growth, and where exactly that energy is coming from if photosynthesis is not meeting demand. After all, you are saying carbohydrate storage is what we desire ... right. Please also explain the more important nutrient K, and how that plays into the picture.

Smallaxe
10-21-2009, 12:01 AM
Damn boy ..... and you complain about P in the lakes from leaves. :dizzy:



Go ahead and expand on this. Please, while you are at it include a reasonable estimate for how much carbohydrate energy is required by root growth, and where exactly that energy is coming from if photosynthesis is not meeting demand. After all, you are saying carbohydrate storage is what we desire ... right. Please also explain the more important nutrient K, and how that plays into the picture.

Thank-you... Let me talk about Wisco. :)
Here in the springtime no N is needed.
B4 summer begins you may put down some N if it will hang in there long enough, and you have enough water to actually use it.
In the summertime N apps arre foolish because they will leach or evaporate b4 they are used during the heat spell. [Yet we continue trying to force it] :dizzy:

In the fall when temps are cool in the air, and warm in the ground, and rains are prevalent - the grass actually grows.!! [When you read the label and it refers to "Acively Growing" it is talking about now.]
Spring is good too... but by the time nature is fully awake, it is forced into a hot and dry hibernation. This is Wisco.

P in the leaves and N in the water table... All the same context... Your first remark does not apply.

K for us was described as the 'antifreeze', that builds the colloids necessary to protect the stored energy that goes into the winter crop. K is a very motile nutrients that is cannibalized by the parts of the plant that needs it, come winter. I wouldn't say it was more important, but obviously, if winter hardiness is compromised, all the energy is wasted.

Kiril
10-21-2009, 01:36 AM
Now that you have had your opportunity to go off on a tangent, back to the questions.

Cool season grass is a cool season grass, they all "generally" act the same, grow best when weather is cooler (i.e. fall & spring).

Consider root growth for cool season grasses is most active/optimum with soil temperatures between 50-65F, shoot growth with air temps between 60-75F. One might think the best time to get the most out a fertilizer application is when the plant can fully utilize what is applied when temps are in these ranges. If soil temperatures are averaging in the 40's, air temps in the 50's and 60's, do you think it is appropriate to apply a high N fertilizer that is primarily a SCU in order to encourage maximum root growth right now? How much photosynthetic capacity does a cool season grass have at your current temps as it relates to carbohydrate storage in the roots?

TurfRyder
10-21-2009, 09:26 AM
Another cheeshead here. Just dropped 25 bags of 21-0-21 yesterday. N is 50% slow release. Don't need no dude from Cali telling us we don't know what we are doing up here. BTW happier cows live in wisco.

Kiril
10-21-2009, 09:34 AM
Another cheeshead here. Just dropped 25 bags of 21-0-21 yesterday. N is 50% slow release.

If the shoe fits ............ Still haven't got any good answers to the questions raised.

Don't need no dude from Cali telling us we don't know what we are doing up here.

Yea, you are right dude. How could someone from CA possibly have any knowledge of cool season grasses and soils. :rolleyes:

cturf
10-21-2009, 11:18 AM
Love the post and lol at the msds for mouth wash, urine with a straight face could not pull that one off. I like to add something about it needs water and then stay off until its dry in fact its on every invoice.

cturf
10-21-2009, 11:38 AM
You better feel again, if you are calling me a "little boy".

Have you ever seen a "little boy" need a tire tool to put on a condom?

I DON'T THINK SO! :weightlifter:

spit it out its not yours

rcreech
10-21-2009, 09:29 PM
spit it out its not yours

If that made any sense at all...it would maybe be funny!

NattyLawn
10-22-2009, 12:34 AM
Rod...

Maybe you can get LT Rich to put the tire iron on your Z-Max. Then the Z can be in the bedroom with you! Now there's a threesome.

I would quote the thread where you wished your Z had a vagina, but I can't seem to care to find it.

mdlwn1
10-22-2009, 02:32 AM
Can I get the cliff notes to page 6 please? I have nematode pressure. Is there some seed I can use that will resist?

rcreech
10-22-2009, 07:04 AM
Rod...

Maybe you can get LT Rich to put the tire iron on your Z-Max. Then the Z can be in the bedroom with you! Now there's a threesome.

I would quote the thread where you wished your Z had a vagina, but I can't seem to care to find it.

:)

Doesn't have to be in the bedroom...I am creative! We can do it in the shop for all I care. :weightlifter:

I remember saying that...and meant it....but can't remember when I said it!

The thing is so sweeeetttt!

phasthound
10-22-2009, 08:50 AM
Can I get the cliff notes to page 6 please? I have nematode pressure. Is there some seed I can use that will resist?

I can't answer about seeds, but ICT Organics NPP works on nematodes.