PDA

View Full Version : phosphorus ban


turf hokie
11-04-2009, 10:46 AM
We are facing a phosphorus ban on Thursday (tomorrow) we just got told of it last night.

If any one can help out with some facts or information on how this blanket ban will not do any good in regards to reducing the P in water etc it would be appreciated.

I understand that Michigan banned P 5 years ago and studies show that there is no change in P in soil or water. Links or where I could find that would help.

Just looking to sway some votes on a split legislature and do it intellegently.

Thanks
Bryan

mdlwn1
11-04-2009, 10:52 AM
Who is we?...NY state, Nassau, Suffolk?

turf hokie
11-04-2009, 01:49 PM
Who is we?...NY state, Nassau, Suffolk?

Sorry MDlawn, we are ROCKLAND county trying to follow in the footsteps of westchester
Posted via Mobile Device

phasthound
11-04-2009, 05:16 PM
Turf Hokie,

Is this a total ban on P, or does it depend upon soil tests and seeding? Does it include organic sources of P?

We're going through this in Jersey. The DEP is requiring municipalities in the Passaic Rivershed to create fertilizer regulations.

Our water system would be much better off if existing regulations were enforced and only trained professionals applied fertilizers and pesticides.

EcoGreen Services
11-04-2009, 06:03 PM
Our water system would be much better off if existing regulations were enforced and only trained professionals applied fertilizers and pesticides.

No kidding, In Ontario you need to be licensed even to use 100% natural products. Yet a homeowner can dump as much of whatever they want. And we all know they almost always over apply.

I think we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to nutrient management.

turf hokie
11-04-2009, 06:48 PM
If you have a soil test that shows a need or if you just planted a NEW lawn, not an overseeding you can apply.

It does not exempt organics.

Mind you I am all for environmental awareness. I would agree with EcoGreen, I think we are in for a long haul. But the problem lies with the lack of enforcement of existing laws like Barry said as well as lack of searching out unlicensed "professionals". These laws continually hamstring those of us that generally do the right thing and are licensed.

tlg
11-04-2009, 07:37 PM
We are facing a phosphorus ban on Thursday (tomorrow) we just got told of it last night.

If any one can help out with some facts or information on how this blanket ban will not do any good in regards to reducing the P in water etc it would be appreciated.

I understand that Michigan banned P 5 years ago and studies show that there is no change in P in soil or water. Links or where I could find that would help.

Just looking to sway some votes on a split legislature and do it intellegently.

Thanks
Bryan

Phosphorus is still in use in Michigan. At least for now. There has been talk of eliminating P for some time. Right or wrong I'm sure it will happen. I have implemnted a phos free program all ready. Mostly as a cost cutting measure for the most part. I will never buy the story of lawn fertilizer being the main cause of phosphorus loading in our lakes. Good healthy turf acts as a filter for runoff of all sorts and phosphorus binds to soils anyway. Those that want to ban P are just looking for a scapegoat IMO. The current legislation in Michigan WOULD allow farmers to continue to apply P, but ban everybody else. I guess farmers have a better lobbyist. More P goes into our lakes from organic debris ( leaves, bird crap, dog crap etc...), deicing materials on our roads, sewage overflows from municipalities and soil erosion than any lawn fertilizer containing P. I would also add that the Great Lakes are cleaner than they have ever been. If your old enough to remember when Lake Erie was " dying " the main cause was attributed to P from laundry soaps and P from poor farming practices. ( over 40 years ago ) This was well before commercial lawn fertilizing really got going big in the late 1970's. Kinda hard to blame lawn fertilizers. Try pestfacts.org for info you can use. Good Luck.

mikesturf
11-04-2009, 09:49 PM
Off the topic, but in Illinois Nursing homes are required by the EPA to dump all their expired narcotics, drugs, medicines down the drain! Not to incinerate, but to put it in our water system.

turf hokie
11-05-2009, 06:52 AM
Phosphorus is still in use in Michigan. At least for now. There has been talk of eliminating P for some time. Right or wrong I'm sure it will happen. I have implemnted a phos free program all ready. Try pestfacts.org for info you can use. Good Luck.

Thanks TLG. Good info on the site. We went phos free almost 3 years ago. But have added some back in as we implement organics into our program. Hard to take the P out of the organics. But we are now showing deficencies in our soil test for both P and K as we cut down on K b/c of cost as well.

I know they will let us apply P if a soil test shows a need. I just dont like the idea that they are coming after our industry again.

The legislature has already passed a bill banning anything on county owned property if it is not deemed "safe" pretty broad if you ask me. It is a slippery slope here right now.

All b/c one legislator keeps presenting these things b/c it is the politically correct thing to do right now.

Frustrating.

Thanks for the help. I will update after tonites meeting.

mdlwn1
11-05-2009, 07:18 AM
Too bad this is what happens when 90% of the industry just jams lawns with fert. (not saying the p in water as much as the state of the industry) I wouldnt have a clue how much does or does not get into the water supply. Successful farmers arent idiots like the majority of lco's. I dont understand why our own industry has not pressured for self regulation such as a 5 year mandatory appretentice program....

mdlwn1
11-05-2009, 08:57 AM
http://www.paton.com.au/Research/Turf/NutrtionGuide/Nutrition/Nutrition%20Book/nutritionofturf.pdf

Cliff notes clay soils..it doesnt move much...sandy soils...it can

Smallaxe
11-05-2009, 09:24 AM
When we were discussing the 'Wisco P ban', we learned that around 80% of the P in water comes from leaf debris. The link from CO university study, that studied that, has since disappeared. Control of the internet is already in place.

P 'can' leach into water , but so minutely they had to set up special boxes to see how much. Not really an issue from the article I read.
Your politicians will not respond to intelligent thought , only to a political agenda.

turf hokie
11-05-2009, 12:16 PM
When we were discussing the 'Wisco P ban', we learned that around 80% of the P in water comes from leaf debris. The link from CO university study, that studied that, has since disappeared. Control of the internet is already in place.

P 'can' leach into water , but so minutely they had to set up special boxes to see how much. Not really an issue from the article I read.
Your politicians will not respond to intelligent thought , only to a political agenda.


Found the link....
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PTLK/1620.html

I do believe that this will pass based on political agenda and emotion and not on facts and studies.

We shall see

timturf
11-05-2009, 03:12 PM
Believe Penn State did studies in mid 90's on nutrient runoff from turfgrass studies. All most none!

Smallaxe, I thought the trees where very efficient and their was very little nutrient value in the leaves. I would like to see the study that states 80% of p2o5 in water from leaf debri

turf hokie
11-05-2009, 09:24 PM
Here is my twitter update.

Law passed 14-2 with 1 absent

Breakdown

Bans P on turf apps unless you have a soil test.
Trees and shrub are exempt
Golf courses are exempt
Organics are exempt in certain forms (they did not give real specifics so I assume that what I use is exempt)

They slid in a complete fertilizer ban from Nov 1 to April 1

I am actually ok with how this went as it really does not affect how I do business anyway.

My concern is what is next, this is a slippery slope to N bans, or bans on cosmetic applications which is my entire business.

RigglePLC
11-05-2009, 10:46 PM
I have been phos free for years. Partly because we do a lot of work around a lake controlled by a lake association. Also part of a nearby country. No problems relative to results on the lawns.

Now the ban on fert until April 1st--that is a problem, as I usually start the day the snow melts, around March 10th to 20th. We hurry to get crabgrass control on all lawns by the 7th of May. But planning to retire...so not my problem. Can you finish your crabgrass control in 5 weeks?

Smallaxe
11-06-2009, 07:14 AM
Found the link....
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PTLK/1620.html

I do believe that this will pass based on political agenda and emotion and not on facts and studies.

We shall see

Thanks, that's the one, I was thinking of. The bookmark evidently didn't perform for some reason. Glad to see that it is still out there.

I have a couple of clients that pay me to keep the dead weeds and tree leaves, cleaned out of the water. They are wealthy "...Capitalist Pigs, unconcerned out the environment if it stands in the way of a buck", says the Enviro Wacko. "The truly Green People leave all that stuff to rot in the water and attract snapping turtles and misquitos." :laugh:

I agree with your statement...

Ric
11-06-2009, 11:23 AM
Anyone who gets the TURF E REPORT might of read where the U of F is now recommending Florida counties that Ban Fertilizer in the Rainy season, now lift that ban.

I am not going into the whole long story but a very active Tree Hugger group won a Fertilizer ban part of the year, in Sarasota county. Political Correctness spread that ban up and down Florida to several other high population counties. Now Scientist at U of F are recommending lifting that ban because it does more harm than good. Read the E Report for Details.


BTW I am for ""Reasonable"" Fertilizer laws. Just read some of the posts here for my reasoning for Fertilizer laws.

phasthound
11-06-2009, 09:35 PM
Ric,
Can you post a link to this report?
Thanks,

phasthound
11-06-2009, 09:51 PM
Thanks, that's the one, I was thinking of. The bookmark evidently didn't perform for some reason. Glad to see that it is still out there.

It's a nice article, I submitted a request for studies the statement is based on. Anyone have access to them?

Ric
11-07-2009, 09:14 AM
Slow Dog

Only for you would I take the time or trouble.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/uf-scientists-lobby-against-summertime-fertilizer-ban-using/1046489


In Edit

Florida Strip Mines Phosphorus in the form of Rock Phosphate and ships it all over the world from the Port of Tampa. Most of our soil has very high levels of Phosphate. Therefore a Phosphorus limitation is not a bad thing for Florida. Unlocking soil bound Phosphorus is not a national secret. However using high ratio of Nitrogen blend Fertilizer is the worst thing to do if you want to unlock soil bound Phosphorus. BTW Orgasmics are even worst for unlocking Phosphorus.

phasthound
11-07-2009, 09:34 AM
Thanks Ric,

The following quote from the article says a great deal.

The report, provided to counties and cities around the state, warns that banning fertilizer in the summer could result in "an inadvertent increase" in pollution in the months before and after the summer blackout.

The reason: Homeowners might overfertilize before and after the blackout, allowing more pollution.

Industry officials requested IFAS write that report, said Erica Santella of TruGreen in Orlando. The turf industry provided half the funding for research that went into the report, Hochmuth said.

"We asked UF to write something that presents the facts as they see them, so that people could make these decisions based on science, not on an emotional basis," Santella said.

However, because the report cites no scientific research about pollution, biologist Holly Greening of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program calls it "conjecture."

IFAS scientists' have a different focus than the people concerned about algae blooms and fish kills, Greening explained: "They're talking about turfgrass health, and we're talking about water quality."

Follow the money.

mdlwn1
11-07-2009, 09:37 AM
Slow Dog

Only for you would I take the time or trouble.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/uf-scientists-lobby-against-summertime-fertilizer-ban-using/1046489


In Edit

Florida Strip Mines Phosphorus in the form of Rock Phosphate and ships it all over the world from the Port of Tampa. Most of our soil has very high levels of Phosphate. Therefore a Phosphorus limitation is not a bad thing for Florida. Unlocking soil bound Phosphorus is not a national secret. However using high ratio of Nitrogen blend Fertilizer is the worst thing to do if you want to unlock soil bound Phosphorus. BTW Orgasmics are even worst for unlocking Phosphorus.


Do you have experiance with unlocking phos? Any links directed towards this issue. My soil is above the chart in phos and fe.

Kiril
11-07-2009, 09:47 AM
It's a nice article, I submitted a request for studies the statement is based on. Anyone have access to them?

This is the actual released report, not some reporters interpretation of it.

http://fyn.ifas.ufl.edu/pdf/SS49600.pdf

I will say this. If people were less concerned with the plants, and more concerned with the soil, many of these problems would not be an issue.

From the report.

Unintended consequence #1: Turfgrass not
adequately fertilized will decline in vigor potentially
leading to increased leaching of nutrients during the
summer, and of fertilizer applied after the restricted
period.

Proper soil management!

Unintended consequence #2: Unhealthy
turfgrass will decline in soil coverage, leading to
more leaching, more weeds, and to more soil erosion
and nutrient runoff.

Once again, proper soil management. Furthermore, this is a big assumption.

Unintended consequence #3: A strict,
calendar-based restricted period may encourage
poorer fertilizer management habits.

Idiots will be idiots .... doesn't matter what time of year it is.

Unintended consequence #4: Focusing solely on
the summer rainy period neglects the remainder of
the year when leaching and runoff also can occur,
especially just before and just after the summer
restricted period.

This is the first good point made by the report! Once again, proper soil management.

Unintended consequence #5: Focusing solely on
fertilizer and neglecting irrigation management
practices could lead to more leaching and runoff of
nutrients.

Absolutely TRUE, but once again, fails to mention proper soil management!
Irrigation and soil management should NOT be separated.

Unintended consequence #6: Where reclaimed
water is being used, nutrients supplied with the
reclaimed water could be leached if irrigation is not
properly managed. The information below is
presented to make several points about relying on
reclaimed water as a substitute for fertilizers during a
restricted period.

This is basically point #5 reworded.

I largely agree with the conjecture comment from Ric's posted news article.

Ric
11-07-2009, 10:02 AM
Do you have experiance with unlocking phos? Any links directed towards this issue. My soil is above the chart in phos and fe.

mdlwn1

Sorry I have a ton of Paper but no links. A complete soil Profile is first needed. Normally high pH soil binds or locks elements to soil. But the ratio of N to K plays a big factor also. High Nitrogen blends tend to lock Phosphorus while Very high Blends of Potassium unlock it. N will raise pH while K lowers it, which doesn't make sense when you know high pH will soil lock elements. It has been many years since I studied this and I only remember what works for my area now. Sorry I don't have energy to look it back up again.

mdlwn1
11-07-2009, 10:08 AM
Potassium is a start...thanks.

Kiril
11-07-2009, 10:13 AM
Potassium is a start...thanks.

No ........ organic matter is your start! Haven't we discussed this before?

Ric
11-07-2009, 10:33 AM
No ........ organic matter is your start! Haven't we discussed this before?

Kiril

Maybe you should give us some links to how Orgasmic unlocks Phosphorus. While I believe in some value of orgasmic products, from the studies I have read orgasmism has nothing to do with getting Phosphate off being soil bound

How Just for You sweet heart.

You can read the U F study here that is the Proposed New State Fertilizer law. BTW it also had input from both Fert Manufactures and Tree Huggers as you can see in this link. While this kills using liquid fert only application programs, I find very little or any fault with the recommentdations of this study. When my own county made a Fertilizer Ordance, they followed this study unlike surrounding counties that went full blown Tree Hugger

http://consensus.fsu.edu/Fertilizer-Task-Force/index.html

You can read the same Tampa Bay area Full Blown Tree Hugger Fertilizer Law only from North Port Florida which is in Sarasota County just south of Tampa. Sarasota County has a very active group of Tree Huggers and was the first to pass this Fertilizer Ordance. Other Counties followed suit in the name of Potical Correctness.

The Big Issue with this Ordances is the banning of all N & P from June 1st to Sept 31 our Rainy and real growing season.

http://www.cityofnorthport.com/index.aspx?page=206

phasthound
11-07-2009, 10:37 AM
Do you have experiance with unlocking phos? Any links directed towards this issue. My soil is above the chart in phos and fe.

Here's a start.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=uJP1SqSxJ87O8QaKs-TzCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=mycorrhizal+phosphorus+uptake&spell=1

Kiril
11-07-2009, 10:39 AM
Kiril

Maybe you should give us some links to how Orgasmic unlocks Phosphorus. While I believe in some value of orgasmic products, from the studies I have read orgasmism has nothing to do with getting Phosphate off being soil bound

Tell you what Ric, I'll be more than happy to provide links if you can explain and provide references that show how potassium unlocks P, and how high N locks it up.

Word of caution. Before you reply, you might want to review the phosphorus cycle.

I'll even provide a resource for you to do that.

http://nmsp.css.cornell.edu/publications/factsheets/factsheet12.pdf

Ric
11-07-2009, 11:19 AM
Kiril

It has been years since I read that study and to be honest I didn't fully understand it then. But the main point was a high K to N ratio had something to do with Phosphate usage by the plant. They are better able to up take Phosphate. I am not about to get into a pissing battle with someone who is on the Internet every waking monument. I actually have a life.

Besides not unlike the Tree Hugger of Tampa Bay, You can come up with all kinds of links without regard to common sense.

Kiril
11-07-2009, 11:27 AM
Kiril

It has been years since I read that study and to be honest I didn't fully understand it then. But the main point was a high K to N ratio had something to do with Phosphate usage by the plant. They are better able to up take Phosphate. I am not about to get into a pissing battle with someone who is on the Internet every waking monument. I actually have a life.

Besides not unlike the Tree Hugger of Tampa Bay, You can come up with all kinds of links without regard to common sense.

WOW ..... that was a long winded nothing from you Ric. Note, I let the N & K thing slide ... until you decided to make an issue about my post. Now you want to start your childish insults instead of having an intelligent adult conversation?

Let me spell it out for you. Common sense dictates we manage the soil in order to maximize nutrient retention and availability. I fail to see how dumping a bunch of potassium into your soil will help release P from insoluble compounds, or how N is going to tie it up.

So can we please have some information on this phenomena or are you going to continue with the insults?

Ric
11-07-2009, 12:04 PM
Kiril

One thing I remember from years ago when I read the article. Once you pass the 1 to 3 ratio of N to K, P is up taken more readily. at 1 to 9 all available P is up taken. As I stated before it did not make good sense to me and I did not fully understand the article which is quite long.

I believe in a lot of K for root extension and good plant health. My program has no P in it because my soil is high with soil bound P. But when I pull Tissue samples I find 1.5 to 2% P in the leaf tissue. Fertilizer Ordinance in my area limit the amount of P applied per year. So what I am doing is working for me. I am done discussing this with you. Sorry I am not going to be today's entertainment for you.

Kiril
11-07-2009, 01:14 PM
One thing I remember from years ago when I read the article. Once you pass the 1 to 3 ratio of N to K, P is up taken more readily. at 1 to 9 all available P is up taken.

I believe we were talking about P availability, not plant uptake. Now if you had said proper P & K levels in the soil improves N use efficiency, then you would be correct.

Do I need to point out that excess K can lead to Mg deficiency in the plant? You realize we don't need to maintain luxury consumption levels of nutrients right?

So with respect to N & P, you might want to review this study to avoid any further hole digging.

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/6/1890.pdf

I am done discussing this with you. Sorry I am not going to be today's entertainment for you.

Gee Rick, who started it? But alas, as usual when you find yourself in a hole you make a quick exit. At least you have the common sense to do that. Next time you might want to check the ground you are standing on before you come after me.

rob7233
11-07-2009, 01:35 PM
Damn Guys, you don't know how disappointing this is!

I was all ready for Class! I was already sitting down, had my drink in my hand and ready to take notes and now class is dismissed... :hammerhead:

If you're so inclined please send me a PM. I want to know more! Thanks.

timturf
11-07-2009, 02:30 PM
I believe we were talking about P availability, not plant uptake. Now if you had said proper P & K levels in the soil improves N use efficiency, then you would be correct.

Do I need to point out that excess K can lead to Mg deficiency in the plant? You realize we don't need to maintain luxury consumption levels of nutrients right?

So with respect to N & P, you might want to review this study to avoid any further hole digging.

http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/6/1890.pdf



Gee Rick, who started it? But alas, as usual when you find yourself in a hole you make a quick exit. At least you have the common sense to do that. Next time you might want to check the ground you are standing on before you come after me.

Just wondering what you believe the proper levels of p and k is in the soil?

Smallaxe
11-08-2009, 08:46 AM
Just wondering what you believe the proper levels of p and k is in the soil?

After all the research and dead ends of achieving -- The Bottom Line - I think their are too many variables coming into play with each different scenario.

If this was real science - we would have results and test cases of the building of a perfect soil with the perfect balance. i.e. The perfect balance between Ca/Mg, 8:1 ratio, or some such thing; then add to that soil - the perfect balance of N/K 1:3 up to 1:9, then how do we balance in P and in what form???

Once we have perfectly balanced our soil to that level , Let's add the Fe and see what grows in the mix after we toss in the total of 72 nutrients in pulverized sand.
Can't our labs do something like that? :)

Kiril
11-08-2009, 09:09 AM
I think their are too many variables coming into play with each different scenario.

I would generally agree with this. There is no ideal number for all expectations, plants, soils, and environmental conditions.

That said, for most turf I would want to see minimum P levels of 18 ppm, minimum N at 8 ppm, minimum K at 120 ppm. These are the levels you would start looking at the performance of the turf and make a judgment call if adding more will provide the desired result, whatever that may be. IMO, dumping a bunch of N to get a fast green response is not a desirable result. Health and density are the primary concerns to consider.