Compost or Meals

[Smallaxe]

JD, demonstrated the amount of N that can be added to a lawn with 1/4 inch coverage. Mathematically, you can get roughly 6 lbs, slow release.
Food crops, really 'mine', the soil to gather up enough P, to grow the fruiting bodies, of annual plants. That, is where, we get, our meals from. Corn, soybean, etc. Upon decompostition, that P, will go into the soil, to which it is, applied.

My question is:
"Will the composted trees, grass, straw, and manure, likely, contain more micro-nutrients, than the synthetically fertilized, monoculture of meals?"

[ICT Bill]

JD, demonstrated the amount of N that can be added to a lawn with 1/4 inch coverage. Mathematically, you can get roughly 6 lbs, slow release.
Food crops, really 'mine', the soil to gather up enough P, to grow the fruiting bodies, of annual plants. That, is where, we get, our meals from. Corn, soybean, etc. Upon decompostition, that P, will go into the soil, to which it is, applied.

My question is:
"Will the composted trees, grass, straw, and manure, likely, contain more micro-nutrients, than the synthetically fertilized, monoculture of meals?"

It depends, is the best answer.
I have seen some really bad compost out there, smelly, stinky stuff that should not be used especially on veggies

Most of the meals that you buy are byproducts of another type of production usually for feed or cereal production

[Smallaxe]

It depends, is the best answer.
I have seen some really bad compost out there, smelly, stinky stuff that should not be used especially on veggies

Most of the meals that you buy are byproducts of another type of production usually for feed or cereal production

So, what is the likelihood, of those by products containing much, in the way, of ... micro-nutrients?

[JDUtah]

Your "likely" gives me free reign to share what I feel. In general...

It is my opinion that the most effective organic food/nutrient source is tissue from the very type of plant you are growing. In general, if a plant uses a particular nutrient, logically that nutrient will be present in that plant tissue. So decomposing grass would be the best nutrient provider for grass. etc. etc.

Of course this logic is limited by nutrient availability in the soil where the source tissue was grown. If a soil is lacking available iron the tissue will be deficient with the same. But even with that, logically, the plant will utilize all of the the limited nutrient and purge itself of other excess nutrients. Also assuming the nutrient ratio is within living parameters.

Now, the nutrient ratio being too far off balance makes it appropriate to test and apply specific nutrients to restore the balance. IMO this is best done synthetically (sorry guys) because you can get very nutrient specific with synthetic fertilizers. However, if the nutrient balance is within check, an application of compost is probably your most balanced micronutreint fertilizer source. I prefer yard waste compost because of the "mother tissue" logic I just described.

Note: You must also consider nutrient mobility in the soil when determining what fertilizer to use. P and K in compost may remain while N in compost may degrade and be washed away.

Hence a regular plant need analysis is recommended.

As far as micro nutrient concentration in (by)product meals... I would suggest you send a sample of your meal in for a plant tissue analysis. $30 or so would give you all the answers you seek, including micro nutrients.

[Smallaxe]

Your "likely" gives me free reign to share what I feel. In general...

It is my opinion that the most effective organic food/nutrient source is tissue from the very type of plant you are growing. In general, if a plant uses a particular nutrient, logically that nutrient will be present in that plant tissue. So decomposing grass would be the best nutrient provider for grass. etc. etc.

Of course this logic is limited by nutrient availability in the soil where the source tissue was grown. If a soil is lacking available iron the tissue will be deficient with the same. But even with that, logically, the plant will utilize all of the the limited nutrient and purge itself of other excess nutrients. Also assuming the nutrient ratio is within living parameters.

Now, the nutrient ratio being too far off balance makes it appropriate to test and apply specific nutrients to restore the balance. IMO this is best done synthetically (sorry guys) because you can get very nutrient specific with synthetic fertilizers. However, if the nutrient balance is within check, an application of compost is probably your most balanced micronutreint fertilizer source. I prefer yard waste compost because of the "mother tissue" logic I just described.

Note: You must also consider nutrient mobility in the soil when determining what fertilizer to use. P and K in compost may remain while N in compost may degrade and be washed away.

Hence a regular plant need analysis is recommended.

As far as micro nutrient concentration in (by)product meals... I would suggest you send a sample of your meal in for a plant tissue analysis. $30 or so would give you all the answers you seek, including micro nutrients.

I not only feel as you do, on the subject, But I think, that what you are saying, may be true, as well. :)

One place, that I would go a step further, is that - if there were 2 parts per million, of iron, for exa., needed for healthy plant growth, those 2 parts will be in the plant tissue.

Nevertheless, the trees, straw, and manure may very well contain, the extra iron needed whereas the corn meal, has 300 parts P and perhaps no boron at all.

Send out, in Wisco, for a plant tissue, analysis!?! :laugh: We are a 'Progressive' State - not an efficient one.

[Landscape Poet]

A little off subject but in regards to the subject!

JD recommended a lab test on the food source. This make sense to me, however you would have to be big enough that the food source you are going to use is going to be consistent correct or is my thinking off here. For example me - I am not large enough to by a ton of any meal - rather I buy 50lb bags at the local farm store as needed. Same with my compost - I buy from my local mulch supplier, however, he sells enough that even if I go back the next day I may not be getting the same "grade" of compost that I got the day before, so would it not be useless for someone like myself to have a lab test done on these materials as the source could always change the nutrient content.

Sorry for rambling on - but I can see the need to do a soil test for the grounds on which you are working- because it is not going to change dramatically until you do something to change it, but for someone who purchases in limited amounts like myself, the source could change at any time right?

Thanks
Michael

[atouchofnature]

A little off subject but in regards to the subject!

JD recommended a lab test on the food source. This make sense to me, however you would have to be big enough that the food source you are going to use is going to be consistent correct or is my thinking off here. For example me - I am not large enough to by a ton of any meal - rather I buy 50lb bags at the local farm store as needed. Same with my compost - I buy from my local mulch supplier, however, he sells enough that even if I go back the next day I may not be getting the same "grade" of compost that I got the day before, so would it not be useless for someone like myself to have a lab test done on these materials as the source could always change the nutrient content.

Sorry for rambling on - but I can see the need to do a soil test for the grounds on which you are working- because it is not going to change dramatically until you do something to change it, but for someone who purchases in limited amounts like myself, the source could change at any time right?

Thanks
Michael

Your compost source likely has already had their product tested/analyzed and should be happy to provide you with the results. If they have not had their product tested, I would look for another source if possible.

Your feed meals will have a label giving the guaranteed minimum analysis for the contents of the bag, and that can serve to help a lot, but of course it isn't exact because the numbers given are minimums, so there could be more than advertised of any particular nutrient. Also, many feeds, at least in my area, will only list the content of protein, fat, & fiber, which doesn't help much for lawn application. In such cases, I usually refer to ingredients101.com (http://www.ingredients101.com/specification.htm) to get at least a "rule of thumb" for nutrient content.

Because of the fact that most natural amendments/fertilizers are not specific in regard to nutrient levels, I have started doing soil tests twice yearly so that I can make modifications to my plans for the lawn mid-year if necessary.

I hope that I wasn't too confusing with my response.

[JDUtah]

In landscape managment I see no problem with a "general" number. A couple samples of each material and you have a ballpark. Remeber, we just need it to be good enough to look good.

Think of it like Table 2 (http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/HG-510.pdf)... a general ruling is close enough.

Now in crop production... you really want to maximize your results. This could be better done with very small margins of error (accurate and repeated testing). BUT, having said that... I believe organics is to be approached as an art, not a science.

Something to note at this time... if testing, be sure to test for total nutrient, not just available nutrient. For instance a mature compost may have 2% Nitrogen, but only .2% of that is available Nitrogen. If you only test for available nitrogen you will miss out on nutrients. Total N, total Sulfur, etc...

[Smallaxe]

A little off subject but in regards to the subject!

JD recommended a lab test on the food source. This make sense to me, however you would have to be big enough that the food source you are going to use is going to be consistent correct or is my thinking off here. For example me - I am not large enough to by a ton of any meal - rather I buy 50lb bags at the local farm store as needed. Same with my compost - I buy from my local mulch supplier, however, he sells enough that even if I go back the next day I may not be getting the same "grade" of compost that I got the day before, so would it not be useless for someone like myself to have a lab test done on these materials as the source could always change the nutrient content.

Sorry for rambling on - but I can see the need to do a soil test for the grounds on which you are working- because it is not going to change dramatically until you do something to change it, but for someone who purchases in limited amounts like myself, the source could change at any time right?

Thanks
Michael

Back in the 1930s, agricultural scientists analysed all the common forage and grain crops. They determined 'x' amount, of element 'e', could be found in any particular crop. Those numbers are fairly consistant. The corn, in Illinios, does not contain more Ca, than the same corn, grown in Wisco. Corn is corn and it needs certain elements stored in its body to become healthy corn. No more, no less.
[Unless, of course, you grow corn, in Horatio Caine's district, of Miami. Then you have corn that starts eating itself, b4 it is harvestted.] :)

The same is true of all living things, including you. We would all, compost down, to the same elements in roughly the same percentages.

If the compost is made of pinewood chips, then you will get x,y, and z nutrients. With maple leaf compost you may get w,x, and z nutrients.

It only makes sense that a combo of trees, grass, straws, and manures would possess a greater variety of micro-nutrients than corn. But - Is that true?

[Smallaxe]

... Also, many feeds, at least in my area, will only list the content of protein, fat, & fiber, which doesn't help much for lawn application. ...

Isn't it true that protiens, fats, and fibers compost down and release a lot of N?

[JDUtah]

N is used as a main building block of Protiens.

[Smallaxe]

N is used as a main building block of Protiens.

So the reverse would be true. As it decomposes, it goes back to N.

[ecoguy]

JD. You said that you think its best to restore lost nutrients synthetically, as it's easier. I guess I'd agree with you as far as 'easier to see results quicker." The problem I have with this approach is it's not sustainable. Wouldn't it make more sense to understand how nature works and then teem with it? As you know, it is the Micro-organisms that make these nutrients available to the plants as they consume the organic matter. By supplying our grass with compost we are feeding and increasing the microbe population creating millions of unpaid workers for our business. They only way these guys are lost is when a lawn is completely neglected or maintained synthetically.

IMO the only reason to maintain a lawn synthetically is to wow customers with quick results. It's actually more expensive for the customer over time to use synthetics then switch to Organic.

[JDUtah]

Ecoguy. I dare you to open an organic/synthetic debate with me. But before you do, you might want to read the thread I started about fertilizer salts in this forum. And before that, read the thread I started about nitrogen availability (organically and synthetically).

Oh and in case you didn't know... Jeff Lowenfels coined the phrase "Teaming with nature (microbes)". Bought his book, read half of it... puked... and returned it. Now don't get me wrong... I am an organic guy... I just don't buy into some of the myths about synthetic fertilizers.


I think you misread my view. I don't recomend synthetic fertilizers in that situation because they are easier. I recomend them because they allow you to "target" limiting nutrients more effectively.

For example.. tell me how to increase nitrogen or iron in a soil without adding P or K with an organic fertilizer?

Point is... If you only need one or two elemts to restore a BALANCE in the soil. Synthetics are your most effective tool. BUT once that balance is resotered... I'm organic all the way... usually.

[ecoguy]

You dare me? Um, ok. *Gr.8 flashback* I'd love to read your threads. I'll see if I can find them. To answer your question regarding increasing nitrogen - recycle the clippings plant 5% clover. Granted, the clover might be a tough sell but still its nature's way of saying there's a nitrogen deficiency so we're sending clover to help.

Synthetics are the most effective tool if you need results quick. So yeah, perhaps in tranisitoning a chemical lawn to an organic one, you could top up the nutrients one last time then go organic - kinda like a user getting one last fix before intervention. Interesting show btw.

I'll check out your threads. No one's attacking you JD, your obviously very bright and run a great business. I was just curious as to the why behind your use for synthetics.

[JDUtah]

To answer your question regarding increasing nitrogen - recycle the clippings plant 5% clover. Granted, the clover might be a tough sell but still its nature's way of saying there's a nitrogen deficiency so we're sending clover to help.

Actually that is natures way of saying "there isn't supposed to be a monopoly of turf in this area". Nature doesn't grow anything called a lawn. That is man's deal. If we were to team with nature we would live alittle more like the historic native americans... now THAT is what I call a hard sell. :drinkup:

I don't feel attacked one bit. I just figured I would give you a heads up before you got into a moral debate with me. In the end the debate would really just waste both of our time.

[NattyLawn]

Actually that is natures way of saying "there isn't supposed to be a monopoly of turf in this area". Nature doesn't grow anything called a lawn. That is man's deal. If we were to team with nature we would live alittle more like the historic native americans... now THAT is what I call a hard sell. :drinkup:

I don't feel attacked one bit. I just figured I would give you a heads up before you got into a moral debate with me. In the end the debate would really just waste both of our time.

JD....You're a bridge guy.

[JDUtah]

JD....You're a bridge guy.

As in I build them or blow them up? ;) jk.

Yes my program is bridge, when need be.

[Smallaxe]

... They only way these guys are lost is when a lawn is completely neglected or maintained synthetically. ...

"Neglected" in what way? Microbes don't thrive in lawns we are not feeding?

Actually the healthiest lawns are the ones, left alone. They just don't look nice according to our standards.

[atouchofnature]

Isn't it true that protiens, fats, and fibers compost down and release a lot of N?

Absolutely true.

I wasn't specific enough, but was referring more to other nutrients that are often given on feed labels such as calcium & phosphorous. I have seen a few feed labels that go as far as to give values for magnesium, iron, sulfur, potassium etc.

I'm not sure if it's correct, or even where I read it, but I remember reading somewhere that a good rule of thumb is protein/6.25=nitrogen. Can anyone confirm or dispute that formula?

[atouchofnature]

"Neglected" in what way? Microbes don't thrive in lawns we are not feeding?

Actually the healthiest lawns are the ones, left alone. They just don't look nice according to our standards.

I agree 100% with this one. I have one customer who only has me mow her lawn. 3 years ago, she took a single spring broadleaf treatment with light fertilizer, and hasn't had any applications since, and hadn't had any before. Her lawn is the last one to stop growing due to drought & is usually my last mow each fall. Most of my mowing is usually wrapped up by mid November, but this lawn usually grows up until early December.

It is probably 20% weeds, mostly clover, but always has decent color and usually requires mowing more often than any of the others. In the time that I have serviced her lawn, she has never had any disease or insect damage. There is a lot to be said for letting nature have it's way. Fortunately, many homeowners aren't satisfied with decent color & 20% weeds, otherwise a lot of us would be out of a job.

[JDUtah]

Be careful when using feed meal nutrient percentages. Often they only represent what molecules the animal is able to absorb. Remember, this is usualy without the help of soil Fungi and various Bacteria. Add those to the equation and you may be applying more nutrients than you originally thought.

[Smallaxe]

I agree 100% with this one. I have one customer who only has me mow her lawn. 3 years ago, she took a single spring broadleaf treatment with light fertilizer, and hasn't had any applications since, and hadn't had any before. Her lawn is the last one to stop growing due to drought & is usually my last mow each fall. Most of my mowing is usually wrapped up by mid November, but this lawn usually grows up until early December.

It is probably 20% weeds, mostly clover, but always has decent color and usually requires mowing more often than any of the others. In the time that I have serviced her lawn, she has never had any disease or insect damage. There is a lot to be said for letting nature have it's way. Fortunately, many homeowners aren't satisfied with decent color & 20% weeds, otherwise a lot of us would be out of a job.

Great observation. :)

[NattyLawn]

I agree 100% with this one. I have one customer who only has me mow her lawn. 3 years ago, she took a single spring broadleaf treatment with light fertilizer, and hasn't had any applications since, and hadn't had any before. Her lawn is the last one to stop growing due to drought & is usually my last mow each fall. Most of my mowing is usually wrapped up by mid November, but this lawn usually grows up until early December.

It is probably 20% weeds, mostly clover, but always has decent color and usually requires mowing more often than any of the others. In the time that I have serviced her lawn, she has never had any disease or insect damage. There is a lot to be said for letting nature have it's way. Fortunately, many homeowners aren't satisfied with decent color & 20% weeds, otherwise a lot of us would be out of a job.

What's the turf type on this property?

[ecoguy]

JD and Smallaxe. Turf grass is one of the few plants that actually benefits from regular cutting so to say just leaving it will make it healthy is a bit of an overstatement. That being said, I think I know where you are coming from and to be honest, the way 75% of the lawns are maintained, it probably would be better to leave nature alone.

As far as my comment concerning neglected lawns, I made a few assumptions based on experience. Yes of course microbes can still exist but not chemical dependant lawns that are neglected. The microbes have been wiped out and not replenished.

[JDUtah]

Eco...

I never said anything about neglected lawns, or not cutting them. You might wanna go read the thread (including the poster's names) more carefully. Maybe take a deep calming breath before you start to read too.

And hey for some real homework... Show me ONE bio assay from a lawn that was properly fertilized on a chemical program where these microbe populations were "wiped out". I bet you can't. On the contrary, I can link you to one that shows high microbial count on a synthetically treated turf. Tested by the soil food web themselves. Makes you wonder about that myth, at least it should. Did you notice that the book doesn't support the claim with any real data??

My advice is that you let go of the whole synthetic fert kills microbes fascination and take organics for what it is... a more naturalistic way of providing plants nutrients... sometimes more sustainably than synthetics.

Have you read the salt thread?

Eh... then again, what good is wasting my time helping you get over something that entertains you so much. I move on. You can continue to think that we are wiping out populations of the most versatile living organisms in the world. Means no difference to me.

[Marcos]

I believe organics is to be approached as an art, not a science.


Nice! :)
I know it's only hump day, but I'd like to nominate this for 'Quote of the Week'.

[Marcos]

Eco...

I never said anything about neglected lawns, or not cutting them. You might wanna go read the thread (including the poster's names) more carefully. Maybe take a deep calming breath before you start to read too.

And hey for some real homework... Show me ONE bio assay from a lawn that was properly fertilized on a chemical program where these microbe populations were "wiped out". I bet you can't. On the contrary, I can link you to one that shows high microbial count on a synthetically treated turf. Tested by the soil food web themselves. Makes you wonder about that myth, at least it should. Did you notice that the book doesn't support the claim with any real data??

My advice is that you let go of the whole synthetic fert kills microbes fascination and take organics for what it is... a more naturalistic way of providing plants nutrients... sometimes more sustainably than synthetics.

Have you read the salt thread?

Eh... then again, what good is wasting my time helping you get over something that entertains you so much. I move on. You can continue to think that we are wiping out populations of the most versatile living organisms in the world. Means no difference to me.

Here, here! :clapping:
Nothing wrong with the use of chemicals in turf from time to time, so long as it's done with the common sense most of us were born with.
We were always told by our parents..."Everything in moderation".
The concept & practice of integrated pest management (IPM) is unquestionably the best thing to ever come out of the professional green (lawn, landscape, sports field & golf course) industry.

I glance around every spring and summer & watch lawn care trucks pull hoses around on lawns, I find it most ironic that it's largely organic named companies that've largely taken the IPM reins away from main steam LCOs like Trugreen.
These contractors comprise what is the fastest growing segment of the industry today: bridge-organics.

[Smallaxe]

Eco...

I never said anything about neglected lawns, or not cutting them. You might wanna go read the thread (including the poster's names) more carefully. Maybe take a deep calming breath before you start to read too.

And hey for some real homework... Show me ONE bio assay from a lawn that was properly fertilized on a chemical program where these microbe populations were "wiped out". I bet you can't. On the contrary, I can link you to one that shows high microbial count on a synthetically treated turf. Tested by the soil food web themselves. Makes you wonder about that myth, at least it should. Did you notice that the book doesn't support the claim with any real data??

My advice is that you let go of the whole synthetic fert kills microbes fascination and take organics for what it is... a more naturalistic way of providing plants nutrients... sometimes more sustainably than synthetics.

Have you read the salt thread?

Eh... then again, what good is wasting my time helping you get over something that entertains you so much. I move on. You can continue to think that we are wiping out populations of the most versatile living organisms in the world. Means no difference to me.

Haha, well put... I like to reference, hospitals, with non-porous surfaces, unable to wipe-out bacteria, fungi and such, using antiseptics... Now we believe, mining inorganic, rocky material from the ground, dumping it on dirt, is going to, wipeout all the living organisms. There are microorganisms that are living on the rocky material, b4 it is mined.

We have salt tolerant alfalfa, that is a living organism, and lots more in the oceans. I'm glad that not everyone is an extremist, that believes in fairytales... Using fungicides on dirt, is just as ridiculus... IMO. :)

[Kiril]

And hey for some real homework... Show me ONE bio assay from a lawn that was properly fertilized on a chemical program where these microbe populations were "wiped out". I bet you can't. On the contrary, I can link you to one that shows high microbial count on a synthetically treated turf. Tested by the soil food web themselves. Makes you wonder about that myth, at least it should. Did you notice that the book doesn't support the claim with any real data??

JD, I don't believe it really has anything to do with "wiping out" microbes, but instead reducing the diversity of organisms to the extent where it results in a net negative impact on the system.


Have you read the salt thread?

you mean this one where I posted a bunch of links?

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?p=2783136#post2783136


As is all too often the case in these forums, people look for all inclusive answers to questions that do not have an all inclusive answer. This is far too complex an issue to simply state yes they do, or no they don't. Also consider our understanding of these complex soil communities is incomplete at best.

Can synthetics (ferts & pesticides) cause damage to microbes/microbial community .... absolutely. Will synthetics (ferts & pesticides) cause damage to the microbes/microbial community in your soils and climate ... maybe or maybe not. Assess your site and soils to determine if use of synthetics will negatively impact the soil microbial community and your system as a whole.

I will say this however ... anyone sitting on top of an aridosol should approach any type of salt additions to your soil (synthetic or organic) with extreme caution.

Some resources that demonstrate the complexity of the issues (some pdfs, some abstract only)


Pesticide Impacts:


http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/65/3/982.pdf
http://www.pjoes.com/pdf/7.5/317-320.pdf
http://www.scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=pjbs.2000.868.871&linkid=pdf
http://www.znaturforsch.com/ac/v58c/s58c0855.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mk7p10r12776u172/



Fertilizer Impacts (organic & synthetic):



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00004-9
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.05.007 (Bic take notice)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00297-3
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/70/5/2692.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/7qbmkhhgrbu4ubw9/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(95)00154-9

[Marcos]

bull



So much for that artful approach of yours, huh, JD?
:laugh: :waving:

[JDUtah]

I have a little more time for some fun.

Kiril,

Exactly like you mentioned... "it really [doesn't have] anything to do with 'wiping out' microbes."

That is exactly my point. And I restate to Eco... "let go of the whole synthetic fert kills microbes fascination and take organics for what it is... a more naturalistic way of providing plants nutrients... sometimes more sustainably than synthetics."

And if you didn't notice, your links show no support to eco's adopted claim that... "They only way these guys are lost is when a lawn is completely neglected or maintained synthetically."

You are good at finding sources... so maybe you can find one that actually proves... a properly synthetically fertilized lawn is somehow missing soil microbes. I asked it then... and I ask it again... it was asked years befoer I asked it... yet people have nothing. Why?

Because it ISN't true! And you know it Kiril. You expose your acceptance in your posts.

I mean think about it guys. Microbes are fascinating organisms with an amazing ability to adapt. They are growing resistant to antibiotics. They persist in hospitals. They travel thousands of miles across oceans without any help from man. We use them to clean up our hazardus materials! And lastly... they are what NATURALLY produce chemical fertilizers!

--

On a side note: of course the structure of the biomass will change based on what nutrients you use. JUST like it will change if an organic nut case switches from blood meal to corn meal to compost to manure. :hammerhead:

[JDUtah]

So much for that artful approach of yours, huh, JD?
:laugh: :waving:

:laugh: :dizzy: :hammerhead: :drinkup:

[Kiril]

You are good at finding sources... so maybe you can find one that actually proves... a properly synthetically fertilized lawn is somehow missing soil microbes. I asked it then... and I ask it again... it was asked years befoer I asked it... yet people have nothing. Why?

Since you have time to burn, instead of spouting off in this forum I suggest you actually read the linked papers.


On a side note: of course the structure of the biomass will change based on what nutrients you use. JUST like it will change if an organic nut case switches from blood meal to corn meal to compost to manure. :hammerhead:

Good for you ... you read the abstract for the first linked paper on ferts. Now read it again.

Soil management practices that result in increased soil C also impact soil microbial biomass and community structure. In this study, the effects of dairy manure applications and inorganic N fertilizer on microbial biomass and microbial community composition were determined. Treatments examined were a control with no nutrient additions (CT), ammonium nitrate at 218 kg N ha−1 (AN), and manure N rates of 252 kg manure-N ha−1 (LM) and 504 kg manure-N ha−1 (HM). All plots were no-till cropped to silage corn (Zea mays, L. Merr) followed by a Crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum, L.)/annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum, Lam.) winter cover crop. Treatments were applied yearly, with two-thirds of the N applied in late April or early May, and the remainder applied in September. Soil samples (0–5, 5–10, and 10–15 cm) were taken in March 1996, prior to the spring nutrient application. Polar lipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis was used to assess changes in microbial biomass and community structure. Significantly greater soil C, N and microbial biomass in the 0–5 cm depth were observed under both manure treatments than in the CT and AN treatments. There was also a definable shift in the microbial community composition of the surface soils (0–5cm). Typical Gram-negative bacteria PLFA biomarkers were 15 and 27% higher in the LM and HM treatments than in the control. The AN treatment resulted in a 15% decrease in these PLFA compared with the control. Factor analysis of the polar lipid fatty acid profiles from all treatments revealed that the two manure amendments were correlated and could be described by a single factor comprised of typical Gram-negative bacterial biomarkers. The AN treatments from all three depths were also correlated and were described by a second factor comprised of typical Gram-positive bacterial biomarkers. These results demonstrate that soil management practices, such as manuring, that result in accumulations of organic carbon will result in increased microbial biomass and changes in community structure.

[ecoguy]

JD. Kiril said it much better. Synthetics have a negative impact on microbes. My claim that "they are totally wiped out" was too much. I wrote it quickly and should have spent more time choosing my words. Sorry for that.

I'm sure I'll be setting off a firebomb here but IPM appears to be Green Washing. Allowing companies to appear ecologically responsible while stilll having the freedom to spray whatever, whenver they want. "We'll only spray if we have to" is the claim but it sounds a bit like "I'll only beat my wife if I have to." Is there ever a good time for abuse? Now before you blow a gasket, I'm not saying you are doing that. I'm just sharing how the IPM comes across to me. Green Washing drives me crazy. It's the ultimate deception and I've seen way to many companies do it. If you're organic, then be organic. If your synthetic, then be synthetic. Doing both only seems to be about money.

[ecoguy]

Also JD, send me your Salt link. I can't find it. Btw JD - I am not a hard core extremist. Far from it. I don't care a lick if you or anyone else uses synthetics. My only point was - don't try and convince the world that people use synthetics because they actually are better for the soil. You said it yourself in the thread Kiril noted above, Comparing - Organic builds soil faster.

[Smallaxe]

Since you have time to burn, instead of spouting off in this forum I suggest you actually read the linked papers.




Good for you ... you read the abstract for the first linked paper on ferts. Now read it again.

... Factor analysis of the polar lipid fatty acid profiles from all treatments revealed that the two manure amendments were correlated and could be described by a single factor comprised of typical Gram-negative bacterial biomarkers. The AN treatments from all three depths were also correlated and were described by a second factor comprised of typical Gram-positive bacterial biomarkers. These results demonstrate that soil management practices, such as manuring, that result in accumulations of organic carbon will result in increased microbial biomass and changes in community structure.

So... does this mean that "lipid fatty acid profiles", are, a good thing?... and that, 'manuring practices' are... also a good thing?... and... what the heck are... 'typical Gram-negative bacterial biomarkers'?...
In your own words, Sil Vous Plait... :)

[JDUtah]

Uh oh Kiril, if you want to read your bolded text in a literal way.. the AN performed more naturaly (closest to the CT) than the ones on which manure was dumped. After all it groupd teh natural plot with the AN plot in contrast to the manure plots. Work with nature.. isn't that the goal? (Yes now I am just playing games)

Eco...
http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=237121
http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=243011

Show me a test... c'mone I dare you. Or backtrack... hmmm can I bait you to backtrack even more?

Show me a test where "Synthetics have a negative impact on microbes". If you read Kiril's linked stuff you would realize there still isn't anything in there that supports that claim.

But some baby steps... answer this first...
How do rocks become mineral nutrints (aka synthetic fertilizers)?

[atouchofnature]

What's the turf type on this property?

It is a mixture of tall fescue (both turf type & KY-31), bluegrass & rye. Best guess on percentages = 50% KY-31 fescue, 20% TTTF, 20% KBG & 10% annual rye.

[Smallaxe]

So you are saying that - most, if not all of our common , cool season grasses - can do well w/out a lot of input, by professional LCO's?

[Kiril]

Uh oh Kiril, if you want to read your bolded text in a literal way.. the AN performed more naturaly (closest to the CT) than the ones on which manure was dumped. After all it groupd teh natural plot with the AN plot in contrast to the manure plots. Work with nature.. isn't that the goal? (Yes now I am just playing games)

Nice back peddle.

[Marcos]

JD. Kiril said it much better. Synthetics have a negative impact on microbes. My claim that "they are totally wiped out" was too much. I wrote it quickly and should have spent more time choosing my words. Sorry for that.

I'm sure I'll be setting off a firebomb here but IPM appears to be Green Washing. Allowing companies to appear ecologically responsible while stilll having the freedom to spray whatever, whenver they want. "We'll only spray if we have to" is the claim but it sounds a bit like "I'll only beat my wife if I have to." Is there ever a good time for abuse? Now before you blow a gasket, I'm not saying you are doing that. I'm just sharing how the IPM comes across to me. Green Washing drives me crazy. It's the ultimate deception and I've seen way to many companies do it. If you're organic, then be organic. If your synthetic, then be synthetic. Doing both only seems to be about money.

If you feel this way about IPM, then you probably haven't been around in the business long enough to practice IPM to even recognize its benefits.
Some of these chemicals have been around since about WWII and we're winding down their usage from massive volumes in the 70's to comparatively much smaller volumes in this decade.
2, 4-d is a great example of this.
It's naive to simply blow off all what we've learned about turf mgmt during the last 65 years and pretend we're all on Walton's mountain again pickin' dandelions.
We've got to use common sense while we begin to go back to the garden (quoting Stephen Stills now :))...and still be able to make wise choices of what we've learned along the way there! (maybe, Dorothy at the conclusion of 'The Wizard of Oz'? :laugh:)

If you think it's "all" about money well you're about 50% correct as far as I'm concerned.
It's a balancing act.
We make enough profit from each customer to keep the train rolling year after year, but not so much that we stand much of a chance to lose them to some LCO owner who might want to be greedier.

[Kiril]

If you feel this way about IPM, then you probably haven't been around in the business long enough to practice IPM to even recognize its benefits.

Apparently you haven't been around very long either. otherwise you would know know IPM came out of Ag, not the landscape industry.

What was it you said?

The concept & practice of integrated pest management (IPM) is unquestionably the best thing to ever come out of the professional green (lawn, landscape, sports field & golf course) industry.


And since you most likely will demand proof.

http://www.ipmnet.org/ipmdefinitions/preamble.html

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has exactly the same meanings as integrated pest control. They are perfect synonyms (Smith 1978). IPM strategies have been in use for the past 100 years but the concept was not widely recognized until the late 1970s (Zalom and Fry, 1992). The term "integrated control" was used first time by A. E. Michelbacher and O. G. Bacon (1952) to describe methodologies for selection, timing and dosage of insecticide treatments for the control of walnut pests and preservation of beneficial arthropods in California (Frisbie, R. E. and P. L. Adkisson, 1985). Bartlett (1956) cited this term for the integrated use of biological and chemical controls to manage insect pests of agricultural crops. Nevertheless, the concept was first articulated by entomologists (Stern et al., 1959) as an approach that applies ecological principles in utilizing biological and chemical control methods against insect pests (Smith et al. 1976). Subsequently, it was broadened to include all control methods (Smith and Reynolds, 1966) and all classes of pests (insects, plant pathogens, nematodes, weeds, vertebrate pests, etc.). The idea of "managing" insect pests populations was suggested by Geier and Clark (1961), and "pest management" was advocated by Geier (1970) in preference to "integrated control". In 1972, a publication of the Council on Environmental Quality (a U. S. Federal Government Agency) entitled, "Integrated Pest Management", stimulated the widespread use of the term "integrated pest management or IPM" in plant protection circles throughout the world. By 1980, IPM was accepted as an economically efficient and environmentally preferable approach to pest control in agriculture, forestry, public health and urban systems.

[Smallaxe]

Hahaha, you don't talk to Ecoguy, only each other... perhaps the other fellow was right, about marriage counseling... IPM is - "A Judgement call"... Hello...

When gov't determines the definition of "ANYTHING" , we are lost.

I don't know a single politician, that I can have an intelligent conversation with about - Botany or plant husbandry, or biodynamics in general... give me a break...

[JDUtah]

Nice back peddle.

I'm still waiting on a link to a study that proves this myth is not a myth...

[ecoguy]

Hey Marcos. Naturally I'm prejudice a bit towards Green Washers. No, I don't think everyone who uses IPM is necessarily Green Washing, although I'm guessing the slope is slippery.

Speaking of history. Wasn't 2-4-D formulated for biological warfare, aka, nerve gas then disgarded when the powers at be noticed not just people died but even better...weeds? My source on this is the new book American Green -great book btw. If that's actually true, wow, not the best grass roots story.

[ecoguy]

JD. I don't have that kind of "proof" laying around. I have contacted some high profile soil techs and awaiting their proof. Once I have it, you will. Testimonial proof is another story. For instance, I installed my organic lawn in late September on a bed of awful infertile clay. I couldn't even rototill it. I had to dig the entire thing by hand. We had just moved in, which is why I seeded that late. Anyways, using only organic methods I planted my lawn not expecting much until the following Spring. This Christmas we had the greenest lawn in the neighbourhood and from Nov 1 on, it rained over 40 days (almost sounds biblical). The 2nd greenest lawn in the neighbourhood is 2 doors down from me. Good ol George. I treated his buttercup lawn in the fall and the other day I stopped by and had coffee and he said "my lawn hasn't looked that good in a long time." I know this isn't proof the way you want it. But like I said, when I have it. You'll have it.

[Smallaxe]

JD. I don't have that kind of "proof" laying around. I have contacted some high profile soil techs and awaiting their proof. Once I have it, you will. Testimonial proof is another story. For instance, I installed my organic lawn in late September on a bed of awful infertile clay. I couldn't even rototill it. I had to dig the entire thing by hand. We had just moved in, which is why I seeded that late. Anyways, using only organic methods I planted my lawn not expecting much until the following Spring. This Christmas we had the greenest lawn in the neighbourhood and from Nov 1 on, it rained over 40 days (almost sounds biblical). The 2nd greenest lawn in the neighbourhood is 2 doors down from me. Good ol George. I treated his buttercup lawn in the fall and the other day I stopped by and had coffee and he said "my lawn hasn't looked that good in a long time." I know this isn't proof the way you want it. But like I said, when I have it. You'll have it.

Give me a break...
give us all a break,...
if there is any value to an "Eco-Sensitive" lawn, let's put the cards on the table now! Peer -reviewed Kr@pp is still, Kr@pp.

Did anyone stop to think that 98% of the people, that hold, 95% of the money, have never read a single, "peer reveiwed" paper, and could really, care less, because it is just so lame??
Eco-guy, we need something in the "Real World"... Make it happen... :)

[JDUtah]

Give me a break...
give us all a break,...
if there is any value to an "Eco-Sensitive" lawn, let's put the cards on the table now! Peer -reviewed Kr@pp is still, Kr@pp.

Did anyone stop to think that 98% of the people, that hold, 95% of the money, have never read a single, "peer reveiwed" paper, and could really, care less, because it is just so lame??
Eco-guy, we need something in the "Real World"... Make it happen... :)

Yeah, but even with that I bet he doesn't get proof that the proper use of synthetic ferts kills soil microbes.

[Marcos]

IPM came out of Ag.


If it came out of Ag 1st, it surely was not acted upon in any quick manner on a nationwide scale.
The topsoil erosion breakthrough of 'ugly farming', or 'no-till' around the late '60s / early '70s would've been about as close to IPM as I can recall.
I've known quite a few corn & soy farmers in the area & to my recollection never have those 3 letters been uttered together in that order.
But you may very well be right.

[Marcos]

Hahaha, you don't talk to Ecoguy, only each other... perhaps the other fellow was right, about marriage counseling... IPM is - "A Judgement call"... Hello...

When gov't determines the definition of "ANYTHING" , we are lost.

I don't know a single politician, that I can have an intelligent conversation with about - Botany or plant husbandry, or biodynamics in general... give me a break...

Govt initiation support or not...
Do think IPM would have survived to this day had it not been for professionals in the green industry *segments working hard to train employees to keep it moving forward?
(*whatever segments:...turf, landscape, golf, Ag, forestry, greenhouse, etc)
A: No.

I know as well as you do that there are plenty of idiots out there that are trained in IPM techniques, but for whatever reason they don't do it.
In they're defense, often their outdated spaying systems are set up by their mgt to make it easier to blanket spray vs spot spray.
And if they have the double-hose injector system for spot weed control available in their vans, they're lucky if they're 100% functional.

So why would an LCO employee go out of their way to NOT blanket-spray yards, and instead take extra time to practice IPM?
Because of their own conscience & initiative to do the job the right way.

And it's these types of employees that don't hang around working for others for long because they learn from their mistakes as well as others around them.
They start their own fledgling companies & work their @&&es off building their business based upon customer relationships, not price.
Then comes the hardest part of all...
They find someone else to work with them who shows they have the same sort of conscience & initiative, but with a different style & intensity.
And that person utilizes IPM in their daily affairs in the field as well as in their training of seasonal employees.

So you see, Smallaxe.
IPM is not just a "judgment call".
It can be a respected standard of ethics passed down through an organization.

IPM is sort of like a shrine, you can either choose to glorify it or piss on it.
But one fact always remains:
It will only become what you make of it. :drinkup:

[ICT Bill]

Yeah, but even with that I bet he doesn't get proof that the proper use of synthetic ferts kills soil microbes.

You made your point, Okay I get it but you are not speaking to the relevance of the statement

We grow out certain microbes with urea, we also use potato juice, fungal hyphi, refined food sources

some microbes die when put into a dish with certain foods, others love it and multiply like mad

The point is, with an applied food source you are selecting for certain bacteria, fungi, etc. This is one of the arguements of applying the widest range of food sources possible

OR

understand what "does well" for the chosen plant and select for "in general" those

when applying what JD likes to call "synethetic NPK" you are serving a food source that selects for the microbes that like it, others will die off or go dormant because they can't eat that stuff or it is not their "cup of tea"

Fungi are degraders mostly they like cellulose based food to chew on and be prolific

bacteria like simpler sugars "in general"

By applying the food source over and over you are selecting for the dominant colony in the soil

does it kill some or make them go dormant, absolutely

the point being if you are applying good guys and giving them the food that they want you will likely promote their colonies in the area that you had hoped

Why would you want to promote any soil life whatsoever? answer me that batman

isn't sterile better?????

[Landscape Poet]

Although I do not enjoy arguing normally on these style sites, it is interesting in the Organic section with talks like this, because it allows both sides of the story to be reviewed and usually each of posters is willing to post related support to whatever area they support. Keep up the good debate style discussions.

[Marcos]

Speaking of history. Wasn't 2-4-D formulated for biological warfare, aka, nerve gas then disgarded when the powers at be noticed not just people died but even better...weeds? My source on this is the new book American Green -great book btw. If that's actually true, wow, not the best grass roots story.

The folks that started this rumor were probably the same people that used to say Agent Orange had been used in the US in late '70s and into the early '80s! :laugh:

Because it's all public input Wiki by no means can be 100% reliable all the time, but in the case of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid I'm confident it's right on target.
The chemical was 1st formulated by the Brits for the purposes on today's Ag label to help bolster wartime crop yield & thus help fend off to a certain degree the Nazi sea blockade of the British Isles.

[NattyLawn]

Eco...

I never said anything about neglected lawns, or not cutting them. You might wanna go read the thread (including the poster's names) more carefully. Maybe take a deep calming breath before you start to read too.

And hey for some real homework... Show me ONE bio assay from a lawn that was properly fertilized on a chemical program where these microbe populations were "wiped out". I bet you can't. On the contrary, I can link you to one that shows high microbial count on a synthetically treated turf. Tested by the soil food web themselves. Makes you wonder about that myth, at least it should. Did you notice that the book doesn't support the claim with any real data??

My advice is that you let go of the whole synthetic fert kills microbes fascination and take organics for what it is... a more naturalistic way of providing plants nutrients... sometimes more sustainably than synthetics.

Have you read the salt thread?

Eh... then again, what good is wasting my time helping you get over something that entertains you so much. I move on. You can continue to think that we are wiping out populations of the most versatile living organisms in the world. Means no difference to me.

Show us the link to the SFI tests please. I think you did in past post.

[Marcos]

Although I do not enjoy arguing normally on these style sites, it is interesting in the Organic section with talks like this, because it allows both sides of the story to be reviewed and usually each of posters is willing to post related support to whatever area they support. Keep up the good debate style discussions.

Feel free to join in anytime you like, Mike!
We won't bite......hard. :laugh::waving:

[ecoguy]

Give me a break...
give us all a break,...
if there is any value to an "Eco-Sensitive" lawn, let's put the cards on the table now! Peer -reviewed Kr@pp is still, Kr@pp.

Did anyone stop to think that 98% of the people, that hold, 95% of the money, have never read a single, "peer reveiwed" paper, and could really, care less, because it is just so lame??
Eco-guy, we need something in the "Real World"... Make it happen... :)

Smallaxe. You keep talking about giving you natural real world data. I just told you 2 stories of how I used 100% chemical free treatments to take 2 very infertile soils and grow great grass in them. Synthetics would have never lasted the torrential rains we had all winter. They are literally the fast food of lawn care. We all know this. Do they work? Yeah. Just like McDonalds "works." But I don't care what works today, I care what works indefinitely. Sounds like a natural, real world arguement to me.

Wait a second, I just realized. Smallaxe is bored. Crap. And I took the bait.

[Marcos]

Synthetics would have never lasted the torrential rains we had all winter. They are literally the fast food of lawn care. We all know this. Do they work? Yeah. Just like McDonalds "works." But I don't care what works today, I care what works indefinitely. Sounds like a natural, real world arguement to me.




ecoguy, even though we don't by any means see 100% eye to eye, you're beginning to impress the hell out of me.
I guess that's because I can see that we have a lot in common in our common sense approaches & the overall optimism we hold in our convictions. :)

[Landscape Poet]

Feel free to join in anytime you like, Mike!
We won't bite......hard. :laugh::waving:

Maybe at some point in the future Marcos - it is more of a learning experience for me, that is why I enjoy debate as long as it is civilized and on topic, gives me a chance to review the ideas, articles that others put out there and try to decipher both sides to come to my own conclusion.

[ecoguy]

ecoguy, even though we don't by any means see 100% eye to eye, you're beginning to impress the hell out of me.
I guess that's because I can see that we have a lot in common in our common sense approaches & the overall optimism we hold in our convictions. :)

Thanks Marcos. Seeing eye to eye isn't crucial as long as their both open. I do see some wisdom in IPM especially in extreme cases. My fear I guess is it'll be another way for abuse to hide.

[ecoguy]

JD. Munch on this. http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Jan10_King.pdf

More to come. (Actually I'm going to open up a new thread - See you there)

[JDUtah]

The other thread...

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=303004