PDA

View Full Version : Phosphorus runoff from Lawns


Ric
12-18-2010, 12:02 PM
Worth watching. Be sure to send links to all your Tree Hugging friends. U of F released a similar finding in response to Local County Tree hugger ordinances here in Florida. The U of F's take was same, No Fert Laws were causing more damage than proper fertilization.

http://www.gcsaa.tv/view.php?id=179

grass4gas
12-18-2010, 12:15 PM
Ric,

Very interesting. I'm book marking this and saving it in case I need it for reference.

Even more interesting was the fact that they are using a
T3000.

I think I'll sit back and watch the debate roll on.

Thanks for posting.

rcreech
12-18-2010, 01:45 PM
Very nice!

Thanks for sharing Ric!

Makes a lot of sense.

greendoctor
12-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Thank you Ric. Confirms what I have observed over the years. Starved lawns contribute to more water and soil runoff vs a well fed lawn.

grassman177
12-18-2010, 01:59 PM
absolutely interesting.

makes total sense and wonder why states did not do research like this before they imposed bans. i think more research is needed in this subject before states should regulate things like this. often times law makers jump the gun and on the bandwagon without having all the facts, and then it becomes law which can sometimes have a negative effect on everyone, but no one is seemingly willing to get it repealed or ammended to correct for wrong information or guidlines

phasthound
12-18-2010, 03:23 PM
The law makers in NJ received info like this from the industry, but still passed the strictest fert law in the nation last week. For the past 2 years there was a great deal of negotiations and I believe the bill that passed is a workable compromise. However, when politicians receive 7,000 letters in favor of banning P & only 70 letters opposed, you know what they are going to do.

I agree with the findings but many people will dismiss the study as biased because it was funded by industry.

quiet
12-18-2010, 03:36 PM
I would have liked to hear them specifically address the P runoff differences of the fertilized plots. Did the "fertilized, but with no phosphorus" plot have the least P runoff after the heavy rain? He said there was a linear relationship of P runoff from the Zero P, 1X P, and 3X P plots.

But did the Zero P plot have the least P runoff after the rainfall? In other words, I'm asking if the "Zero P" turf was sufficiently dense and developed to provide the least amount of nutrient run off.

That would be justification for just N and K fertilizing, without additional P.

grassman177
12-18-2010, 04:57 PM
I would have liked to hear them specifically address the P runoff differences of the fertilized plots. Did the "fertilized, but with no phosphorus" plot have the least P runoff after the heavy rain? He said there was a linear relationship of P runoff from the Zero P, 1X P, and 3X P plots.

But did the Zero P plot have the least P runoff after the rainfall? In other words, I'm asking if the "Zero P" turf was sufficiently dense and developed to provide the least amount of nutrient run off.

That would be justification for just N and K fertilizing, without additional P.

very good question and i would also like an answer.

anyone know? maybe we could contact this guy for the info.

gregory
12-18-2010, 05:18 PM
great video... makes sense......

ted putnam
12-18-2010, 06:04 PM
very good question and i would also like an answer.

anyone know? maybe we could contact this guy for the info.

Same here. And as far as what Phasthound posted, misinformation coupled with media hype is the root of all evil. That applies to more than just the P debate as well. It's a shame that we can't live in a "no spin" zone.

ted putnam
12-18-2010, 06:37 PM
There is a phosphorous ban in NW Arkansas and has been for the last 4 or 5 yrs. Tyson is based in that part of the state and I truly believe the phosphorous run off there has more to do with the spreading of chicken manure by farmers than the turf industry. However, we're an easy target because John Q Public doesn't equate algae blooms with Chicken Poo. They also don't realize that the number of acres treated with chicken poo probably outnumbers acres treated with standard fertilizer blends 15 to 1. Why? because nobody tells them.All they know is algae blooms are caused by phosphorous runoff and phosporous comes from fertilizer. This has to be so because that's what the 6 o'clock news told them.:rolleyes:
Because of this phosphorus ban, fertilizer blends lacking P have become more available. I used some almost exclusively 2 yrs ago. I wasn't really happy with the overall look of my lawns so last year I used a 24-5-11 blend all season. I was much happier with the results and my customers were too. JMO

dKoester
12-18-2010, 07:14 PM
I believe it all comes down to PROPER resource management which so many people ignore.

Ric
12-18-2010, 07:22 PM
-6There is a phosphorous ban in NW Arkansas and has been for the last 4 or 5 yrs. Tyson is based in that part of the state and I truly believe the phosphorous run off there has more to do with the spreading of chicken manure by farmers than the turf industry. However, we're an easy target because John Q Public doesn't equate algae blooms with Chicken Poo. They also don't realize that the number of acres treated with chicken poo probably outnumbers acres treated with standard fertilizer blends 15 to 1. Why? because nobody tells them.All they know is algae blooms are caused by phosphorous runoff and phosporous comes from fertilizer. This has to be so because that's what the 6 o'clock news told them.:rolleyes:
Because of this phosphorus ban, fertilizer blends lacking P have become more available. I used some almost exclusively 2 yrs ago. I wasn't really happy with the overall look of my lawns so last year I used a 24-5-11 blend all season. I was much happier with the results and my customers were too. JMO


I would hate to confuse the average Yard Boy but does any one realize how much or how little Phosphate per Thousand Ted is actually applying per Thousand Sq ft with the 24-5-11 blend???

If he is applying at the rate of a pound of Nitrogen per Thousand Sq Ft, Then he is applying 0.0875 of a pound of Phosphate.

phasthound
12-18-2010, 08:26 PM
The following quote is not aimed at anyone, but should be pondered by us all.


Fullness of knowledge always means some understanding of the depths of our ignorance; and that is always conducive to humility and reverence.
Robert Millikan

dKoester
12-18-2010, 08:36 PM
Philosophizer! Sweet!

phasthound
12-18-2010, 08:49 PM
Philosophizer! Sweet!

You mean Philosphorouspher! :)

ted putnam
12-18-2010, 10:28 PM
-6


I would hate to confuse the average Yard Boy but does any one realize how much or how little Phosphate per Thousand Ted is actually applying per Thousand Sq ft with the 24-5-11 blend???

If he is applying at the rate of a pound of Nitrogen per Thousand Sq Ft, Then he is applying 0.0875 of a pound of Phosphate.


There'll be some calculator pounding looking for that number for a while!:laugh: Ric, are you trying to keep folks on their toes???

grassman177
12-19-2010, 12:01 AM
if there is a ban, then why did you use P ted? not to bust you or anything, but was curious the instant i read that.

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 12:30 AM
if there is a ban, then why did you use P ted? not to bust you or anything, but was curious the instant i read that.

No prob grassman. I am in central Arkansas. It is only the Northwest corner(about 10-12 counties) that are under the ban. Pretty much the Fayetteville/Springdale area. Problem is, the watershed for this area is into Oklahoma. This fact alone probably has a lot to do with why there is now a ban in that area.
Most of the suppliers in my area sell fert to businesses in that area as well so that's why many of the phosphorus free blends are available here too. Thank goodness we still have a choice though because I think that .208 lb/ k of phosphorus I applied made a big difference on the lawns and I got several comments from customers about it.
I've got an opportunity to try a 30-0-10 30% XCU this year at an out-of-this world price and I'd like to try it only because I've never used XCU before(and of course the excellent price), however, I'm skeptical because of the lack of P and because I try to use 50% slow release during the height of the growing season for longevity reasons. I've heard results using XCU are better than SCU as far as % of slow release in relation to longevity. Not sure if this is true and not really sure if I want to use something without P again.

Ric
12-19-2010, 08:54 AM
There'll be some calculator pounding looking for that number for a while!:laugh: Ric, are you trying to keep folks on their toes???

Ted

This is a professional forum? Right?? Then as professionals everyone should have no problem verifying my math. But I will remind the unwashed masses that Phosphate is expressed in it's oxide form on a Fertilizer label.

BTW 24-5-11 is a 4-1-2 ratio which has been accepted as the Best Ratio for most all Turf Grasses. Unless you believe the BS Scotts puts out about their 32-2-3.

grassman177
12-19-2010, 10:44 AM
i am considering using much less P as i dont want to over use it, which i have done in the past. i used much less this year than in the past, as well as N in some cases as first it was overly wet and humid, then the rest of the year was very dry and somewhat brutal. i think most of my lawns look pretty darn good compared to most, but also most of them i did some kind of renovation, mostly aerate and seed. i do like a nice healthy dose right after the summer heat and transition.

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 10:45 AM
Ted

This is a professional forum? Right?? Then as professionals everyone should have no problem verifying my math. But I will remind the unwashed masses that Phosphate is expressed in it's oxide form on a Fertilizer label.

BTW 24-5-11 is a 4-1-2 ratio which has been accepted as the Best Ratio for most all Turf Grasses. Unless you believe the BS Scotts puts out about their 32-2-3.

I suppose I am a member of the unwashed masses. My education was focused on business, not the sciences such as Chemistry so chemistry is not my Forte'. However figuring percentages given raw numbers is. It just so happens that I am married to a princess who is actually still asleep in the royal bed chamber. She just happens to be a Chemistry teacher on break from teaching peasant children. When she awakes from her beauty sleep, I will ask her about what you have said.:laugh:

phasthound
12-19-2010, 11:23 AM
Uh oh, I just found out that we would not have evolved if not for phosphorous runoff!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510132159.htm

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 11:41 AM
Uh oh, I just found out that we would not have evolved if not for phosphorous runoff!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510132159.htm

I haven't read your link yet Barry, but I will. I guess you are saying humans wouldn't have developed if P wasn't part of the "primordial soup".I'll have to quiz the princess about that one too. She actually has a degree in Biology, Masters in Education and teaches Chemistry. She's a well educated princess and I have yet to figure out why she hooked up with a "knuckle dragger" like me.

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 11:51 AM
Interesting link Barry. I have seen results of research on insects showing that they were much larger during this period due to increased oxygen availability( much higher than 21%) Hence, dragonflies with 2 ft. wingspans.

NattyLawn
12-19-2010, 12:01 PM
I know Ric likes to take jabs at treehuggers and such, but one of the reasons I don't apply P, or use very little of it, is the soils in my area don't need it. It's very rare for me to see low P come back on a soil test, and usually the cause of that is an imbalance of other nutrients locking up the available P. Like I said, I can only speak for soils in my area, but if people knew how to read a soil test and adjust accordingly, we wouldn't need to apply the P that is recommended by our local "land grant university".

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 12:06 PM
I know Ric likes to take jabs at treehuggers and such, but one of the reasons I don't apply P, or use very little of it, is the soils in my area don't need it. It's very rare for me to see low P come back on a soil test, and usually the cause of that is an imbalance of other nutrients locking up the available P. Like I said, I can only speak for soils in my area, but if people knew how to read a soil test and adjust accordingly, we wouldn't need to apply the P that is recommended by our local "land grant university".

Natty, don't take this the wrong way because I am in no way trying to be a smartazz but...What is the "key" you use to "unlock" the P? I am very interested in knowing

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 12:39 PM
Natty, don't take this the wrong way because I am in no way trying to be a smartazz but...What is the "key" you use to "unlock" the P? I am very interested in knowing

Natty, I realize this probably an oversimplified question and it is probably more of a "combination" than a "key", but I am still interested in knowing.

Ric
12-19-2010, 12:54 PM
Natty, don't take this the wrong way because I am in no way trying to be a smartazz but...What is the "key" you use to "unlock" the P? I am very interested in knowing

Ted

Princess has the Education in Chemistry and Biology and you are the one applying toxic Chemicals to our Environment? OK

Your question Sounds like a question you should be asking Princess, who BTW should be the one posting on LS. But you might also ask Princess what reactions occur in the soil that effect P and How ratios between N and K help cause that Reaction?

Natty

Soil Bound P is just that SOIL BOUND. You may not need to apply P if your soil is rich in P, but you do have to break it lose. The rive that flows past my house was in fact the First place Rock Phosphate was discovered. From the 1800ths on it was drenched from that River and surrounding Strip mines and shipped all over the world.

Ric
12-19-2010, 01:06 PM
Uh oh, I just found out that we would not have evolved if not for phosphorous runoff!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510132159.htm

Slow Dog

I had read about the Great Oxidation Event before, But I will not elaborate on the reverse effect of less oxygen on Al Gore and his Tree Hugging followers. Or will I try explain why have there head where the sun doesn't shine means less Oxygen also.

NattyLawn
12-19-2010, 01:32 PM
Ted

Princess has the Education in Chemistry and Biology and you are the one applying toxic Chemicals to our Environment? OK

Your question Sounds like a question you should be asking Princess, who BTW should be the one posting on LS. But you might also ask Princess what reactions occur in the soil that effect P and How ratios between N and K help cause that Reaction?

Natty

Soil Bound P is just that SOIL BOUND. You may not need to apply P if your soil is rich in P, but you do have to break it lose. The rive that flows past my house was in fact the First place Rock Phosphate was discovered. From the 1800ths on it was drenched from that River and surrounding Strip mines and shipped all over the world.

Yes Ric, I get that. I was just trying to point out that not everyone needs to apply a 10-10-10 to keep the grass thick and avoid the supposed run-off that the no fert or no P test plot had.

Ted,

To unlock P, check on N, K and Mg deficiencies. Also, too much P can lock up iron and the micros.

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 01:47 PM
Ted

Princess has the Education in Chemistry and Biology and you are the one applying toxic Chemicals to our Environment? OK

Your question Sounds like a question you should be asking Princess, who BTW should be the one posting on LS. But you might also ask Princess what reactions occur in the soil that effect P and How ratios between N and K help cause that Reaction?

Natty

Soil Bound P is just that SOIL BOUND. You may not need to apply P if your soil is rich in P, but you do have to break it lose. The rive that flows past my house was in fact the First place Rock Phosphate was discovered. From the 1800ths on it was drenched from that River and surrounding Strip mines and shipped all over the world.


Your statemnt in bold is your opinion of course, however think of it this way. Aircraft are developed by aeronautical and jet propulsion engineers, However, they are rarely the ones who pilot these machines. The pilot doesn't always completely understand the nuts and bolts of why things work the way they do but he is the one who actually gets the thing off the ground and flying.

Kiril
12-19-2010, 02:11 PM
I am finding this thread amusing to say the least, especially given this is unpublished research.

Furthermore, to point out that there will be more erosion from a lower density turf vs. a higher density turf seems to me a statement of the obvious.

BTW ... I might point out that any "soil bound" ion (i.e. adsorbed) is considered readily plant available. With respect to P, it is not what is "soil bound" that is the problem with respect to nutrient availability, but rather what is tied up in insoluble compounds. There is no need to "break loose" soil bound P, just as there is no need to "break loose" any adsorbed ion. It is surprising Ric didn't point this out given his never ending criticism of other peoples intelligence.

fl-landscapes
12-19-2010, 02:16 PM
I am finding this thread amusing to say the least, especially given this is unpublished research.

Furthermore, to point out that there will be more erosion from a lower density turf vs. a higher density turf seems to me a statement of the obvious.

BTW ... I might point out that any "soil bound" cation (i.e. adsorbed) is considered readily plant available. With respect to P, it is not what is "soil bound" that is the problem with respect to nutrient availability, but rather what is tied up in insoluble compounds. There is no need to "break loose" soil bound P, just as there is no need to "break loose" any adsorbed cation. It is surprising Ric didn't point this out given his never ending criticism of other peoples intelligence.

here is some published research for anyone who wants to read it. Page 2 I believe covers P in relation to soils and plant uptake http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/166384/nt-phosphorus-acidity.pdf

Ric
12-19-2010, 04:01 PM
Your statemnt in bold is your opinion of course, however think of it this way. Aircraft are developed by aeronautical and jet propulsion engineers, However, they are rarely the ones who pilot these machines. The pilot doesn't always completely understand the nuts and bolts of why things work the way they do but he is the one who actually gets the thing off the ground and flying.

Ted

Actually my statement you highlighted in bold is not necessarily my real opinion. BUT YOU DID PIN A TARGET ON PRINCESS. With a giant target like that, I just couldn't pass up taking a shot. Nothing personal and no malices intended, I just reacted to what you gave me.

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 04:04 PM
-6


I would hate to confuse the average Yard Boy but does any one realize how much or how little Phosphate per Thousand Ted is actually applying per Thousand Sq ft with the 24-5-11 blend???

If he is applying at the rate of a pound of Nitrogen per Thousand Sq Ft, Then he is applying 0.0875 of a pound of Phosphate.

Actually,there is a difference between PHOSPHORUS and PHOSPHATE. If we are going to split hairs then I am applying .2083 lb/k of Phosphate actual Phosphorus is only a fraction of this based on the P2 O5 Phosphate compound listed on the label.

Per Princess: Actual P is calculated using molar weights of the phosphate compound and this information is not included on the fertilizer label.

Ric
12-19-2010, 04:18 PM
Actually,there is a difference between PHOSPHORUS and PHOSPHATE. If we are going to split hairs then I am applying .2083 lb/k of Phosphate actual Phosphorus is only a fraction of this based on the P2 O5 Phosphate compound listed on the label.

Per Princess: Actual P is calculated using molar weights of the phosphate compound and this information is not included on the fertilizer label.

Ted

My Bad and I realized my improper semantics after I posted the question. The reason I didn't correct my mistake was because I figure the average Yard Boy would never see the mistake. Yes Phosphate is P2O5 and my answer of 0.0875 lb. is the actual Phosphorus which is what the thread is about.

Kudos to the Princess

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 04:27 PM
Ted

Actually my statement you highlighted in bold is not necessarily my real opinion. BUT YOU DID PIN A TARGET ON PRINCESS. With a giant target like that, I just couldn't pass up taking a shot. Nothing personal and no malices intended, I just reacted to what you gave me.

Ric, I did not take anything personal and I promise you PRINCESS has a target pinned on her every day by packs of smartazz teenagers. She knows how to fire back.:laugh:

NOW *trucewhiteflag*

Ric
12-19-2010, 04:39 PM
Ric, I did not take anything personal and I promise you PRINCESS has a target pinned on her every day by packs of smartazz teenagers. She knows how to fire back.:laugh:

NOW *trucewhiteflag*

*trucewhiteflag*

I actually made the mistake in this thread, and then realized it later. But Many times I make those kind of mistakes on propose just to see if anyone will catch them.

phasthound
12-19-2010, 05:11 PM
Slow Dog

I had read about the Great Oxidation Event before, But I will not elaborate on the reverse effect of less oxygen on Al Gore and his Tree Hugging followers. Or will I try explain why have there head where the sun doesn't shine means less Oxygen also.

I'll pit Al Gore's brain power over Sarah Palin's any time.

fl-landscapes
12-19-2010, 05:54 PM
I'll pit Al Gore's brain power over Sarah Palin's any time.

has he learned how to spell potato yet?????:laugh:

phasthound
12-19-2010, 06:41 PM
has he learned how to spell potato yet?????:laugh:

Umm, that was Dan Quayle in Trenton NJ, 1992.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI&feature=related

Ric
12-19-2010, 06:49 PM
I'll pit Al Gore's brain power over Sarah Palin's any time.

Slow Dog

IMHO they both Qualify for the special Olympics But I believe the Tea Party might want to argue with you on that point. However this is a subject for the political Forum.

fl-landscapes
12-19-2010, 07:17 PM
Umm, that was Dan Quayle in Trenton NJ, 1992.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI&feature=related

see what I get trying to be a smart azz.......end up looking like a dumb azz:laugh:

rcreech
12-19-2010, 08:54 PM
This thread has taken gotten spun just like so many!

I totally agree with the professor on the video as it makes total sense and goes along with other research I have seen.

Is P an issue today in the environment? YES...but turf care is a non-issue. It is coming from the livestock sector more then anything.

They need to leave the turf industry alone on this topic if you ask me.



1) Phosphorus is an immobile nutrient and only "runs off" with soil movement or erosion and also doesn't leach unless at high levels (above 400#).

2) Agree that thin turf will have more run off due to exposed soil getting the "SPLASH EFFECT" and a splash causing explosion effects. Thick turf protects soil from this.

3) There is tons of P and K in the soils per acre but very little is plant available by %. Very little one can do to make it plant avail if tied up

4) It has been proven that 30% of what we apply (P and K) gets tied up

5) I am not sure that I have seen where adding P will affect other nutrients. I think that is more of a pH deal.
I know of livestock farms that have P levels exceeding 300# per acre and it is some awesome producing soils!

6) In turf situations P is rarely needed. Has anyone ever seen turf show a P defeciency?

I have not applied P in 3 years here for several reasons.
- We don't need it
- Price $$$$$$$$
- Nutrient cycling


If one is not removing their clippings then the P and K removal is VERY low!

phasthound
12-19-2010, 09:07 PM
see what I get trying to be a smart azz.......end up looking like a dumb azz:laugh:

Yea, get your VP's right. Al Gore invented the internet.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

rcreech
12-19-2010, 09:10 PM
Yea, get your VP's right. Al Gore invented the internet.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Hey don't forget....he INVENTED global warming too!
:)

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 09:35 PM
Hey don't forget....he INVENTED global warming too!
:)

Global Warming.That must be why parts of the northeast have already received record snowfall this year and nobody can get out of Heathrow airport in London right now.:laugh:

grassman177
12-19-2010, 09:59 PM
actually it is

rcreech
12-19-2010, 10:02 PM
Global Warming.That must be why parts of the northeast have already received record snowfall this year and nobody can get out of Heathrow airport in London right now.:laugh:

I know!

We have already have already had sub 0 temps here!

It has been crazy and going to get crazier this week.

ted putnam
12-19-2010, 10:34 PM
actually it is

I know what you're saying grassman and I agree. Of course, "global warming" is not the catch phrase any more. The new term is "climate change". Only a fool would think we weren't experiencing that. Question is, how much of it are we responsible for and how much of it is natural cycles that occur anyway?

Ric
12-19-2010, 11:44 PM
Worth watching. Be sure to send links to all your Tree Hugging friends. U of F released a similar finding in response to Local County Tree hugger ordinances here in Florida. The U of F's take was same, No Fert Laws were causing more damage than proper fertilization.

http://www.gcsaa.tv/view.php?id=179

RC

You are 100% correct about where the P contamination is coming from and it is not Lawn Care. But Agriculture has a HUGE Lobby as you already know. Agriculture is too hard of target for the Tree Huggers so they pick on the Yard Boys

dKoester
12-20-2010, 12:04 AM
There is a shift in the way farmers are growing these days and it is gaining steam. Alot are changing over to no till using direct seeding machinery. This leaves soil undisturbed which leads to better soil structure and less run off. Most of these farmers are using cover crops to prevent erosion during the winter months instead of leaving the soil bare and exposed to wind erosion.

grassman177
12-20-2010, 12:35 AM
I know what you're saying grassman and I agree. Of course, "global warming" is not the catch phrase any more. The new term is "climate change". Only a fool would think we weren't experiencing that. Question is, how much of it are we responsible for and how much of it is natural cycles that occur anyway?

i think what matters most is the pollution to the air, as it then affects everything all the way to the atmosphere and oceans.

Neal Wolbert
12-20-2010, 01:43 AM
There's nothing better than doing prescription fertilization based on soil tests, but I also know it's impractical and too costly. However there are general guidelines for most areas and soil types. That given, it makes sense not to apply phos. unless it is needed. Over-application can have serious consequences as well. The link below is to an article by Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott, Washington State University Researcher, that speaks to the relationship between phos. and plant needs and other fertilizers, and sheds light on what can happen if it's over-applied. Her "Horticultural Myths" column is very interesting. I'll bet her views would be fodder for more debates to come.
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~linda%20chalker-scott/horticultural%20myths_files/Myths/Phosphate.pdf

Merry Christmas!
Neal

rcreech
12-20-2010, 07:22 AM
There is a shift in the way farmers are growing these days and it is gaining steam. Alot are changing over to no till using direct seeding machinery. This leaves soil undisturbed which leads to better soil structure and less run off. Most of these farmers are using cover crops to prevent erosion during the winter months instead of leaving the soil bare and exposed to wind erosion.

Maybe where you live...but not here.

No-till started getting big here about 20 years ago. We have been no-tilling now for well over 30 years on both corn and beans. Our ground is rolling and we benefit greatly from it!


However in the last 10 years I would say no-till has just been stable. Guys will no-till beans and work their corn ground. Now most guys that no-till are even going to vertical tillage. They go about 8-12" deep and there is very little soil disturbance. Data isn't showing an ROI so I won't be doing it anytime soon...but everyone is doing it. I call it recreational tillage!

As far as cover crops there is very little going on in the corn belt.
Several reasons...

1) Place for insects to harbor
2) Soils stays too wet in spring due to cover
3) Cost
4) Hard to kill off in the spring

Ground covers may have their place sometime in the future...but very little here in the eastern corn belt anyway.

Where are you seeing cover crops at?
What are they using?

fl-landscapes
12-20-2010, 08:01 AM
Global Warming.That must be why parts of the northeast have already received record snowfall this year and nobody can get out of Heathrow airport in London right now.:laugh:

we have had three hard frosts here already, unheard of this early in the year. 25 degrees below normal.

phasthound
12-20-2010, 08:42 AM
Admittedly, I've had my fun with this thread but let's get back to the original supposition.

As others have mentioned, I would like to see the numbers for P runoff on all the test plots in the study. This is important info that was not included in the video. Ric, can you track that down?

dKoester
12-20-2010, 11:44 AM
Maybe where you live...but not here.

No-till started getting big here about 20 years ago. We have been no-tilling now for well over 30 years on both corn and beans. Our ground is rolling and we benefit greatly from it!


However in the last 10 years I would say no-till has just been stable. Guys will no-till beans and work their corn ground. Now most guys that no-till are even going to vertical tillage. They go about 8-12" deep and there is very little soil disturbance. Data isn't showing an ROI so I won't be doing it anytime soon...but everyone is doing it. I call it recreational tillage!

As far as cover crops there is very little going on in the corn belt.
Several reasons...

1) Place for insects to harbor
2) Soils stays too wet in spring due to cover
3) Cost
4) Hard to kill off in the spring

Ground covers may have their place sometime in the future...but very little here in the eastern corn belt anyway.

Where are you seeing cover crops at?
What are they using?

All around this area and parts of eastern NC. Its mostly Winter Rye. Alot of CSA farmers are using it to protect soil during winter. It is a growing trend around here. What you said about the corn belt makes sense do to the lay of the land. When it floods it floods bad. In agriculture there is no one size fits all method. Its best just to manage resources properly. If land is manages properly water should reach way deep into the soil effortlessly(C horizen) which would lead to less flooding except for once in a hundred year types of flooding.

Ric
12-20-2010, 12:05 PM
Admittedly, I've had my fun with this thread but let's get back to the original supposition.

As others have mentioned, I would like to see the numbers for P runoff on all the test plots in the study. This is important info that was not included in the video. Ric, can you track that down?

Slow Dog


A few years back I was ask to be an evaluator of Seashore Paspalum and Salt water irrigation study by a PhD of a Florida State University. My job was only to look at Numbered samples and give them value each week. The PhD went to a popular Gulf Beach and collected water right out of the surf. He mixed it with City Tap water in varying degrees. To my knowledge he didn't do the first pH test let alone electrical conductivity to determine PPM of salt in any of his samples. No bicarb test no water quality numbers of any kind. He also replenished his Salt Water supply from a different location near a Fresh water out let to the sea. NOW THE UNBELIEVEABLE PART. He got his study published in multiply industry publications and he didn't give the first set of number values.

phasthound
12-20-2010, 12:33 PM
Slow Dog


A few years back I was ask to be an evaluator of Seashore Paspalum and Salt water irrigation study by a PhD of a Florida State University. My job was only to look at Numbered samples and give them value each week. The PhD went to a popular Gulf Beach and collected water right out of the surf. He mixed it with City Tap water in varying degrees. To my knowledge he didn't do the first pH test let alone electrical conductivity to determine PPM of salt in any of his samples. No bicarb test no water quality numbers of any kind. He also replenished his Salt Water supply from a different location near a Fresh water out let to the sea. NOW THE UNBELIEVEABLE PART. He got his study published in multiply industry publications and he didn't give the first set of number values.

Yes it's true that many published papers are only worth the paper they're printed on. I had hoped that since you posted the link you might have more info.

txgrassguy
12-20-2010, 05:25 PM
I am aware of several long term studies conducted by both Purdue and Penn State regarding run-off from turf sites.
The Penn State study was way back in the early 90's and Purdue built a series of catch basins linked to a rather elaborate drainage system during one of their golf course re-builds during the late 90's.
While I do not have the study info I am certain it can be readily obtained.

HayBay
12-20-2010, 09:19 PM
His name is Barry Horgan

He has a Powerpoint Presentation available here:

www.aapfco.org/AM07/Brian_Horgan.ppt

He tells you in the video he is sponsored by RISE.

Good Video Ric.

HayBay
12-20-2010, 09:27 PM
Sarasota, FL precautionary principle resolution


Sarasota County, Florida, passed a resolution on September 28, 2010, advising citizens to apply the precautionary principle to pesticide use. The resolution was based on the recent President's Cancer Panel Study (see RPR 194) and the EPA announced phaseout of certain pesticides to protect children (Draft FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan).

Thanks to Ed Rosenthal for telling RPR about this important development. Ed writes, "This is a very important matter for all of us who want to leave the planet in a reasonable condition for our grandchildren. Lets not wait any longer and HOPE no one else gets sick or unnecessarily exposed to pesticides and make positive changes where we live and our grandchildren play. We know enough to act."

Here is the full text of the resolution:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA ADVISING THE CITZENS TO USE PRECAUTIONS IN USING HOUSEHOLD AND OUTDOOR CHEMICALS TO LESSEN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.

WHEREAS, The Sarasota County Board of Commissioners having become advised of the publication of the President’s Cancer Report has concerns relative to the health and safety of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, this concern is addressed by a recent EPA announcement that plans on reducing the concentration of targeted chemicals by a certain percent in the general population by 2015; and

WHEREAS, Sarasota citizens when implementing their choices in home and lawn pest control options should consider following the Precautionary Principle especially in chemical control options. This principle is an approach that requires minimizing or eliminating potential hazards at the onset of prescribed usage instead of the approach that determines an acceptable or unknown level of harm.

Citizens should consider the Precautionary Principle before using home and lawn chemicals when young children are present thereby eliminating a potential hazard rather than accepting a level of risk; and

WHEREAS, Sarasota County government believes that individual residents have the power to protect the health of current and future generations of Sarasota citizens and to reduce the burden of exposure to environmental home and lawn chemicals through their own actions;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARSOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA:

Section 1. The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners recommends that citizens and consumers who want to reduce risk to environmental exposure are advised to use sustainable pest control methods that remove sources of food, water, and shelter for reduction of pests and to reduce or eliminate pest problems coupled with consideration of the Precautionary Principle if chemical control options are selected.

Section 2. The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners recommends citizens consider selecting plants that are adapted to their yards and resistant to pest problems, avoiding problematic and invasive plants, and properly installing and maintaining plants to reduce reliance on watering, fertilizer and pesticide/herbicides applications.

PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF September 2010. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

phasthound
12-20-2010, 10:23 PM
His name is Barry Horgan

He has a Powerpoint Presentation available here:

www.aapfco.org/AM07/Brian_Horgan.ppt

He tells you in the video he is sponsored by RISE.

Good Video Ric.

Thanks HayBay!

HayBay
12-20-2010, 10:52 PM
my pleasure.

tlg
12-22-2010, 10:59 PM
Here in Michigan a new Phosphorus ban has been passed . The use of P for lawn care will be illegal. Farmers will be exempt from this law. If anybody thinks the reason is farmers know how to better apply P or have some magic wand.... Let me assure you that there are only two reasons why farmers get some slack here. They have bigger lobbyist, and we all have to eat. Don't get me wrong I don't have a problem with that at all. It's just that there is something wrong with the science that can justify one groups use of P over another groups use when we are in fact trying to achieve similar results. If anybody wants to play the morality card... as in we don't need lawn care but we do need food.... I would say we can justify lawn care as a great economic and environmental proponent as any . Yes we need food, but don't we need they economic, aesthetic and environmental qualities that a nice healthy lawn provides. They lawn care industry is huge. It's economic impact is as well. To favor one industry over the other seems more like a civil rights violation to me than a clear and decisive proclamation of blame. Let me be clear this law is based on half truths, emotional drama and the precautionary principle.

The study brought out here shows that there still is much debate over P leaching out. I will say it was encouraging however to see something dispel much of the previous debate on the issue of P leaching. The results simply show what many have be saying right along. A good healthy lawn acts like a filter and poorly maintained lawns will promote the leaching of P . Let the debate continue and the science play out as it will. We really have no choice but to work within the parameters our government as demanded we do.

ted putnam
12-23-2010, 12:07 AM
Seems like I saw some numbers one time. Turf (Golf, Sports, Home Lawns) $50 billion annually. Agriculture, $250 billion annually. The same rule applies throughout all levels of government, and I know you've heard this one before. "Money talks, Bullsh!t walks". That's why they skate and we get stepped on.

Kiril
12-23-2010, 09:15 AM
The study brought out here shows that there still is much debate over P leaching out. I will say it was encouraging however to see something dispel much of the previous debate on the issue of P leaching. The results simply show what many have be saying right along. A good healthy lawn acts like a filter and poorly maintained lawns will promote the leaching of P . Let the debate continue and the science play out as it will. We really have no choice but to work within the parameters our government as demanded we do.

The study was for P runoff, not leaching, and if you take a hard look at the results, they are anything but conclusive, nor would it be appropriate to attempt to extrapolate the results outside of experimental conditions as some are trying to do here. This study has also yet to be published to my knowledge. People who are looking to hang their hat on this video/ppt presentation as justification for including P fertilizers in their programs (or for whining about regulations) should be looking elsewhere.

@Ted

US total Ag sales per the latest Ag census (2007) was nearly 300 billion, CA accounts for ~ 34 billion of that. These numbers are just for products produced and sold (ex. crops) and doesn't include other economic impacts that Ag might have.

With respect to people here ... per this study (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE63200.pdf) published in 2006, total economic impact of lawncare service industry (i.e. everything) was ~ 18.5 billion in 2002 (pg. 16).

As a point of reference, the CA dairy industry alone had an estimated 63 billion in total economic impact in 2008 (ref) (http://www.californiadairypressroom.com/print/21).

Point being, there is no reasonable comparison to be made here. Comparing the lawncare industry to Ag is like comparing a single drop of water to the ocean.

Smallaxe
12-23-2010, 09:15 AM
Here in Wisco, the fertilizer machinery is now being sophisticated to the point of having soil tested every so often across any given field. When fertilizer is actually being applied, the GPS is dictating, what is applied, when, where and how much.

Fert application is done only as needed, and it is changed according to that need many different times across the field. No area recieves too much according to the 'conventional wisdom' about how much is needed for each crop. So that is a huge improvement.

Roundup ready soybeans and GMO corn, unfortuneately gets worse. Roundup is showing up in well water now, just as Aldicarb is present. GMO grains are foreign to the natural body, so the body is unable to digest and use a percentage of the food value...

Even at that, is there any farm that puts down 3-5 lbs. of N/k, during a single growing season?

phasthound
12-23-2010, 10:25 AM
I think the annual tonnage of fert usage in the US breaks down to 98 million tons for agriculture and 2 million tons for turf.

rcreech
12-23-2010, 10:49 AM
Here in Wisco, the fertilizer machinery is now being sophisticated to the point of having soil tested every so often across any given field. When fertilizer is actually being applied, the GPS is dictating, what is applied, when, where and how much.

Fert application is done only as needed, and it is changed according to that need many different times across the field. No area recieves too much according to the 'conventional wisdom' about how much is needed for each crop. So that is a huge improvement.

Roundup ready soybeans and GMO corn, unfortuneately gets worse. Roundup is showing up in well water now, just as Aldicarb is present. GMO grains are foreign to the natural body, so the body is unable to digest and use a percentage of the food value...

Even at that, is there any farm that puts down 3-5 lbs. of N/k, during a single growing season?



VRT (Variable Rate Technology) has been used for well over 15 years and is nothing new. Spreader changes on the go and can actually spread two products at one time.

We have been grid sampling and using VRT has come a long way since it started. We are now pulling samples by GPS by soil type.

All fertilizer and lime is applied using VRT technology. We actually end up putting on much overall and put what is needed where it is needed.


Round up in water?
Where are you getting this info? Can you please provide as this is new to me.
Glyphosate doesn't stick around long and breaks down (very short half life) quickly in the soil. Are you sure you are not thinking of the Trizine family or something else?

Please share the information you have on GMO corn and it being foreign to the natural body. GMO crops are such a small inclusion of finished products so I am curious to hear what you are discussing here and where the data come from.

What foods are you discussing?

Did you know that seedless watermelon and seedless grapes are GMO's. That is something that we eat and isn't in small inclusion rates as it is the whole product. What about them I wonder?

What are the effects of a body if it is "foreign"? I have never heard this either and if so...why is 80+% of the crops raised in the US are GMO.


As far as 3-4# of N/k on the farm during a growing season...do the math.
For a corn crop, rarely will you find anyone that is putting less then 150# of N/acre and most are in the 180-200# range. Out in the western corn belt they will even use higher amounts of N because of much higher yielding soils.

That is a spread of 3.44#/k to 4.59#/k going onto a corn crop.

Typical thinking is you need 1.2# of N/bushel of corn. That is now being argued with new fertilizer technology, timing and better corn genetics etc. There is also a new GMO technology coming in the near future and it is a Nitrogen Managment trait that will be added and will take much less N to make a "normal" crop.

Ric
12-23-2010, 10:51 AM
I think the annual tonnage of fert usage in the US breaks down to 98 million tons for agriculture and 2 million tons for turf.

Slow Dog

Your Numbers look more like what I have seen in the past. I am thinking Florida Green industry is about the same percentage Hort to Ag. We have a very large Green Belt in the center of our State. Big Sugar, Cattle and Citrus are the Biggies but don't forget we still produce a lot of Vegetables. Growing Nurseries, Tree Farms, Aquaculture and Golf Courses etc are also considered AG side.

MY POINT IS: Ag has a lot of money tied up and therefore pays for a VERY STRONG LOBBY. They are more than willing to throw Hort under the bus to appease the Tree Huggers.



HAYBAY

Sarasota Florida just north of me is home to some of the more active Tree Huggers not only in Florida but the USA. While it would be very possible for me to have a Route in Sarasota County. I elect not to risk, a run in with those people.

rcreech
12-23-2010, 10:57 AM
I think the annual tonnage of fert usage in the US breaks down to 98 million tons for agriculture and 2 million tons for turf.

Amazing numbers!

And they are going after the guys putting 2 million tons!
:laugh:

Ric
12-23-2010, 12:08 PM
Slow Dog

Your Numbers look more like what I have seen in the past. I am thinking Florida Green industry is about the same percentage Hort to Ag. We have a very large Green Belt in the center of our State. Big Sugar, Cattle and Citrus are the Biggies but don't forget we still produce a lot of Vegetables. Growing Nurseries, Tree Farms, Aquaculture and Golf Courses etc are also considered AG side.

MY POINT IS: Ag has a lot of money tied up and therefore pays for a VERY STRONG LOBBY. They are more than willing to throw Hort under the bus to appease the Tree Huggers.



HAYBAY

Sarasota Florida just north of me is home to some of the more active Tree Huggers not only in Florida but the USA. While it would be very possible for me to have a Route in Sarasota County. I elect not to risk, a run in with those people.

Amazing numbers!

And they are going after the guys putting 2 million tons!
:laugh:


RC

And coming from a Farm Family you missed my point about the Ag Lobby being one of the strongest in Washington DC???? I am old enough to remember This Link. I am sure your daddy told you tales about it.

http://www.britannica.com/facts/10/40946685/December-10-1977-Thousands-of-farmers-drive-tractors

Smallaxe
12-23-2010, 12:57 PM
@ rcreech,
The glysophate in the well water, was a statement made on public television, on one of their Green programs... I didn't think gly was going to last that long either, perhaps it was one of the inert chemicals in the Roundup that showed up there...
I'd be happy to show you the water testing results, if the program or the professor had suplied them, but the PBC has their own method of promoting Green...

VRT is new around here, probably became quite common about 10 years ago. Now if we could get LCOs to do as well here on the lakes...

If the farmers are putting as much fert on food as we are on lawns, then God bless them. At least we got breakfast to look forward to.

The GMO corn... That's a whole research project in itself, and we label according to content of total protien, not digestable protien. Just like dogfood used to be. The UK and Germany, perhaps the entire EU may have actual nutrition information, on digestible protiens. Try to get details on what honogenized milk fat does in your body... High fructose corn syrup... hydrgenated oils... nutrisweet... vaccinations... etc., etc...

The WIDNR does not allow the removal of anarobically decomposing leaves in lakes, and no where is the information about what these leaves are decomposing into, (maybe the same NPK + micros that made them?) not that I have found anyway. Evidently that is no problem, becuz it would certainly be part of the discussion down in Madison asthey continue to pass legislation... or maybe not... :)

Ric
12-23-2010, 01:16 PM
@ rcreech,
The glysophate in the well water, was a statement made on public television, on one of their Green programs... I didn't think gly was going to last that long either, perhaps it was one of the inert chemicals in the Roundup that showed up there...
I'd be happy to show you the water testing results, if the program or the professor had suplied them, but the PBC has their own method of promoting Green...

VRT is new around here, probably became quite common about 10 years ago. Now if we could get LCOs to do as well here on the lakes...

If the farmers are putting as much fert on food as we are on lawns, then God bless them. At least we got breakfast to look forward to.

The GMO corn... That's a whole research project in itself, and we label according to content of total protien, not digestable protien. Just like dogfood used to be. The UK and Germany, perhaps the entire EU may have actual nutrition information, on digestible protiens. Try to get details on what honogenized milk fat does in your body... High fructose corn syrup... hydrgenated oils... nutrisweet... vaccinations... etc., etc...

The WIDNR does not allow the removal of anarobically decomposing leaves in lakes, and no where is the information about what these leaves are decomposing into, (maybe the same NPK + micros that made them?) not that I have found anyway. Evidently that is no problem, becuz it would certainly be part of the discussion down in Madison asthey continue to pass legislation... or maybe not... :)

Smallaxe

Tree Huggers are small group of addictive personalities not unlike junkies. Because they have no real training they grab on to the first thing that looks like it helps their cause. When the LS Orgasmic forum first started I knocked it because. The Moderator was a retired Government Civil Engineer who never had the first formal training in Agronomy and never worked in the green industry in any way or shape. Yet he was here in a supposedly a professional forum to TELL US HOW TO DO IT.

Glyphosate is pretty much eaten by Microbes once it hits water. There is little of any Glyphosate residue left after several hours. Aquatic Glyphosate has no surfactant added because the surfactant has been proven to mutate Frogs. But then just about every thing will cause a Mutation in Frogs.

phasthound
12-23-2010, 01:30 PM
Amazing numbers!

And they are going after the guys putting 2 million tons!
:laugh:

While those of us in lawn care recognize that we are a small part of the problem, this industry has done a poor job of presenting this to the public.
Many other industries have embraced "the green movement" and have reduced their energy costs, their environmental impact while improving their public image. The "green industry" has been slow to act.

Regulating nutrient inputs from lawn care in and of itself, will have little impact IMHO. But here in NJ the legislatures do realize that other steps need to be taken to reduce non-point source pollution and are working on other bills to reduce nutrient runoff.

Kiril
12-23-2010, 04:01 PM
I think the annual tonnage of fert usage in the US breaks down to 98 million tons for agriculture and 2 million tons for turf.

USDA reported U.S. total consumption of plants nutrients (N-P-K) was ~21.5 million nutrient tons for 2008 (ref (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/Tables/FertilizerUse.xls) table 1).

Now can someone find some more data to put it into perspective? What is the application acreage for Ag vs. turf?

Ric
12-23-2010, 04:58 PM
USDA reported U.S. total consumption of plants nutrients (N-P-K) was ~21.5 million nutrient tons for 2008 (ref (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/Tables/FertilizerUse.xls) table 1).

Now can someone find some more data to put it into perspective? What is the application acreage for Ag vs. turf?

Kiril

You are the Data king with the Internet links. Please document your statement.

phasthound
12-23-2010, 08:21 PM
From http://www.tfi.org/factsandstats/statistics.cfm

There are two ways to measure use. One is by nutrient content — how much nitrogen, phosphate and potash are contained in the fertilizer applied. In fiscal year 2004, 23.4 million tons of nutrients were applied. Another way to measure is in total tonnage — the total tons it takes to deliver the nutrient content. In fiscal year 2004, 57.8 million total tons were used in the United States.

rcreech
12-23-2010, 10:45 PM
@ rcreech,
The glysophate in the well water, was a statement made on public television, on one of their Green programs... I didn't think gly was going to last that long either, perhaps it was one of the inert chemicals in the Roundup that showed up there...
I'd be happy to show you the water testing results, if the program or the professor had suplied them, but the PBC has their own method of promoting Green...

VRT is new around here, probably became quite common about 10 years ago. Now if we could get LCOs to do as well here on the lakes...

If the farmers are putting as much fert on food as we are on lawns, then God bless them. At least we got breakfast to look forward to.

The GMO corn... That's a whole research project in itself, and we label according to content of total protien, not digestable protien. Just like dogfood used to be. The UK and Germany, perhaps the entire EU may have actual nutrition information, on digestible protiens. Try to get details on what honogenized milk fat does in your body... High fructose corn syrup... hydrgenated oils... nutrisweet... vaccinations... etc., etc...

The WIDNR does not allow the removal of anarobically decomposing leaves in lakes, and no where is the information about what these leaves are decomposing into, (maybe the same NPK + micros that made them?) not that I have found anyway. Evidently that is no problem, becuz it would certainly be part of the discussion down in Madison asthey continue to pass legislation... or maybe not... :)

So pretty much you are believing what you seen on the news and what you read!
:dizzy:

Far from proven!

The news will slant everything it can!

rcreech
12-23-2010, 10:49 PM
RC

And coming from a Farm Family you missed my point about the Ag Lobby being one of the strongest in Washington DC???? I am old enough to remember This Link. I am sure your daddy told you tales about it.

http://www.britannica.com/facts/10/40946685/December-10-1977-Thousands-of-farmers-drive-tractors

Ric,

Lobbying is a very important part of agriculture and the turf industry does a lot of lobbying through the OTF and OLCA.

It is the voice of all of us.

I agree with you that there is so much money tied into agriculture and "the people" have to be careful to not "bite the hand that feeds them".

If the govt were to limit fertility, genetics or traits...the world would starve.

People will disagree and argue on this all they want...but we are currently short on corn and the population is continuing to increase every day.

Between $$$$$$ and lobbying agriculture is probably much safer then most!

Smallaxe
12-24-2010, 08:18 AM
Smallaxe

Tree Huggers are small group of addictive personalities not unlike junkies. Because they have no real training they grab on to the first thing that looks like it helps their cause. When the LS Orgasmic forum first started I knocked it because. The Moderator was a retired Government Civil Engineer who never had the first formal training in Agronomy and never worked in the green industry in any way or shape. Yet he was here in a supposedly a professional forum to TELL US HOW TO DO IT.
...

I was curious just how and why you managedthat... :)

Smallaxe
12-24-2010, 08:36 AM
So pretty much you are believing what you seen on the news and what you read!
:dizzy:

Far from proven!

The news will slant everything it can!

I rarely believe anything I hear on the 'news'. When you research something you come to the conclusion that somebody is lieing, because all the contradictory 'credible sources' can't be right...

I see tons of leaves in the lakes. I see no soil going into the water, and we know that P doesn't leach,(much)... I really can't believe any gov't statement that DOESN'T address that issue. It is stupid to give them crediblity, when they purposely sidestep the truth. Everything that is stated is based on a FALSE premise...

Until it is ratioanally analysed, it is a suckers' game... :dizzy: ...:)

Kiril
12-24-2010, 09:24 AM
From http://www.tfi.org/factsandstats/statistics.cfm

There are two ways to measure use. One is by nutrient content — how much nitrogen, phosphate and potash are contained in the fertilizer applied. In fiscal year 2004, 23.4 million tons of nutrients were applied. Another way to measure is in total tonnage — the total tons it takes to deliver the nutrient content. In fiscal year 2004, 57.8 million total tons were used in the United States.

I think nutrient tonnage is what you want, especially when talking pollution. It is easy to get numbers on Ag acreage, less easy for turf, and I haven't seen anything on the total nutrient tonnage split for either.

Based on this study (http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf) which is the only published estimate on total turf in the U.S. I have seen, found the total turf land coverage to be 163,812 km^2 (± 35,850 km^2). This includes "all residential, commercial, and institutional lawns, parks, golf courses and athletic fields".

That is ~ 40,478,827 acres +/- ~858,727 acres.

Per USDA census (ref (http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/us.htm)) 2007

Total Ag land is 2,260,994,361 acres
Total Ag farmland 922,095,840 acres
Total Ag cropland is 406,424,909 acres

Even if we take just the Ag cropland ratio to turf that gives us ~ 10 times more cropland than turf.

Total Ag farm land to turf, yields ~ 23 times more Ag land than turf.

Total Ag to turf, yields ~ 56 times more Ag land than turf.

So there is your land data. We have total nutrient tonnage .... now you just need to find the split of Ag nutrient tonnage to turf nutrient tonnage to put it all in perspective.

rcreech
12-24-2010, 10:10 AM
But really I don't think it even matters how much fertilizer is applied. Other then N I don't seen issues w P and K
To me...it is the application (or over application) of manure that is the issue
Laws are changing rapidly on livestock producers
They now must monitor application rates, get analysis of manure and are required to have a diked holding area

I heard last week that Ohio wants to enforce anyone applying fertilizer or manure will need a license
I really like the idea
Posted via Mobile Device

Kiril
12-24-2010, 10:28 AM
But really I don't think it even matters how much fertilizer is applied.

Sure it matters .... with respect to the people who are claiming turf grass fertilization isn't responsible for pollution when compare to Ag.

Other then N I don't seen issues w P and K

IMO, N & P would be the biggest concern for turf grass, especially that which borders impervious surfaces.

To me...it is the application (or over application) of manure that is the issue

Laws are changing rapidly on livestock producers
They now must monitor application rates, get analysis of manure and are required to have a diked holding area

I heard last week that Ohio wants to enforce anyone applying fertilizer or manure will need a license I really like the idea

I would mostly agree here based on studies I have seen. Feedlots and how they handle raw manure is probably the biggest single source of Ag related water pollution.

phasthound
12-24-2010, 11:04 AM
This link includes a chart showing sources of nutrient runoff in the Chesapeake Bay.

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/post/Improving-Water-Quality-is-Focus-of-202(a)-Report.aspx

redbuckcavs
12-28-2010, 08:36 AM
I forwarded the site to two clients and the both thought it was good information, but they both asked the same Question "how can a unfertilized lawn have more nutrient run off if your not applying any fert"

#1 grass clippings have nutrients that return to soil

# 2 certain types of soil already have excessive nutrients (was the lawn a farm field yrs ago)

Smallaxe
12-28-2010, 09:56 AM
I forwarded the site to two clients and the both thought it was good information, but they both asked the same Question "how can a unfertilized lawn have more nutrient run off if your not applying any fert"

#1 grass clippings have nutrients that return to soil

# 2 certain types of soil already have excessive nutrients (was the lawn a farm field yrs ago)

A lot of that is exageratted and assumed by the 'scientists'. If 'manure bacteria' is being percolated into the ground water, then they really have some mechanical steps to take. Farmers don't need to irrigate anything into the well water. Everything they apply they want to keep in the root zone. Even though city people with their lawns can't understand that, farmers should. Soil scientists should. Horticulturalists should. But instead we keep doing stupid studies that are probably as accurate as the study that says, "One breath of second hand smoke from a cigarette, will shorten your life...", by 5 years or more... :laugh:

How much water does it take to make a crop? Duh, gee wiz... more is better, can't survive without more water, creating a mucky soil out of blow sand... Maybe if we concentrated on NOT being stupid...

Getting the 'natural' debris out of the water, makes a huge difference in algae growth... more than a 19% reduction in murky water and algae... In my experience it is like 100% difference.

But the layman can't think anything on his own, so don't listen to any common sense. Only the experts can say whatever their agenda dictates.

rcreech
12-28-2010, 10:20 AM
I forwarded the site to two clients and the both thought it was good information, but they both asked the same Question "how can a unfertilized lawn have more nutrient run off if your not applying any fert"

#1 grass clippings have nutrients that return to soil

# 2 certain types of soil already have excessive nutrients (was the lawn a farm field yrs ago)

I am sure his point was...the fertilized lawn was THICKER and therefore has less water impact with the soil.

It is the same analogy as no-till vs tillage.

The key to no-till and a thick lawn is the same. You cant to REDUCE soil to water impact and slow the water down if it is running. The slower water runs the less sediment it will carry (grass acts as a filtering system in a way).

A thick lawn will have much less impact and will reduce run off allowing the water to filter into the soil.

phasthound
12-28-2010, 12:01 PM
I am sure his point was...the fertilized lawn was THICKER and therefore has less water impact with the soil.

It is the same analogy as no-till vs tillage.

The key to no-till and a thick lawn is the same. You cant to REDUCE soil to water impact and slow the water down if it is running. The slower water runs the less sediment it will carry (grass acts as a filtering system in a way).

A thick lawn will have much less impact and will reduce run off allowing the water to filter into the soil.

Yes, a thick lawn reduces erosion of soil that naturally contains nutrients when compared to a thin lawn. However, an over fertilized lawn will increase nutrient runoff and leaching. Everything in moderation.

Kiril
12-28-2010, 12:07 PM
I forwarded the site to two clients and the both thought it was good information, but they both asked the same Question "how can a unfertilized lawn have more nutrient run off if your not applying any fert"

#1 grass clippings have nutrients that return to soil

# 2 certain types of soil already have excessive nutrients (was the lawn a farm field yrs ago)

Neither one of these have anything to do with the experiment. All the plots are assumed identical with respect to starting soil conditions and management methodology.

The reasons for the differences in runoff between the unfertilized plot and the fertilized ones was because of the differences in turf density. The results clearly show as your P fert rate increases, so does your P runoff, regardless of turf density.

Additionally, only one year showed increased P runoff on the unfertilized plot, which pretty much makes the study inconclusive at the point of the power point presentation.

phasthound
12-28-2010, 12:07 PM
[QUOTE=Smallaxe;3837725]A lot of that is exageratted and assumed by the 'scientists'. If 'manure bacteria' is being percolated into the ground water, then they really have some mechanical steps to take. Farmers don't need to irrigate anything into the well water. Everything they apply they want to keep in the root zone. Even though city people with their lawns can't understand that, farmers should. Soil scientists should. Horticulturalists should. QUOTE]

He was referring to nutrient runoff, not nutrient leaching. Manures are a large source of nutrient runoff.

Kiril
12-28-2010, 12:12 PM
He was referring to nutrient runoff, not nutrient leaching. Manures are a large source of nutrient runoff.

If I may Barry .... improperly handled manures (mostly raw) are a large source of nutrient runoff/pollution.

redbuckcavs
12-28-2010, 12:15 PM
the question our clients are asking is "how can there be nutrients in the soil if the soil has not been fertilized...where are the nutrients coming from" we tell them the grass itself has nutrients, so therefore everytime you mow you are returning the nutrients back to the soil

Mark Oomkes
12-28-2010, 01:29 PM
There is a shift in the way farmers are growing these days and it is gaining steam. Alot are changing over to no till using direct seeding machinery. This leaves soil undisturbed which leads to better soil structure and less run off. Most of these farmers are using cover crops to prevent erosion during the winter months instead of leaving the soil bare and exposed to wind erosion.

Not so sure on this. I was talking about this with my BIL who used to farm but now just leases his land to be farmed so he keeps in touch with methods and he said many are going back to tilling because of the benefits in yields.

Admittedly, I've had my fun with this thread but let's get back to the original supposition.

As others have mentioned, I would like to see the numbers for P runoff on all the test plots in the study. This is important info that was not included in the video. Ric, can you track that down?

I saw a presentation from a FSU (I think) prof last December regarding the whole phosphorous and no fertilization debate in FL where they did measure the actual runoff--not just the amount--and it was drastically reduced in a fertilized lawn. He even testified before the state legislature to no avail. Not sure if it is online or published someplace.

the question our clients are asking is "how can there be nutrients in the soil if the soil has not been fertilized...where are the nutrients coming from" we tell them the grass itself has nutrients, so therefore everytime you mow you are returning the nutrients back to the soil

Soil has more phosphorous than fertilizer, so when there is erosion or runoff from a heavy rain, the phosphorous level goes up. One of the reasons sand is not used for de-icing in many areas. Same reason erosion fencing is required on construction sites.

phasthound
12-28-2010, 02:11 PM
the question our clients are asking is "how can there be nutrients in the soil if the soil has not been fertilized...where are the nutrients coming from" we tell them the grass itself has nutrients, so therefore everytime you mow you are returning the nutrients back to the soil

Nutrients found in the soil come from minerals from parent rock, decomposing organic matter and microbiological processes. It is only in the last 75 years or so that we have been adding nutrients from sources other than manures, compost and cover crops.

phasthound
12-28-2010, 02:13 PM
If I may Barry .... improperly handled manures (mostly raw) are a large source of nutrient runoff/pollution.

That's true and the disclaimer should be used for everything.

HayBay
12-28-2010, 02:28 PM
Followup info on Chesapeake Bay Reference.

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/image.axd?picture=2009%2f8%2fsources_of_phosphorus_2009.jpg

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/image.axd?picture=2009%2f8%2fsources_of_nitrogen_2009.jpg

Smallaxe
12-29-2010, 10:23 AM
This is the statement taken from the article referenced.
'Runoff' into surface water is different than 'seepage' into groundwater.
Purposefully misleading or extremely unrealistic, meant to frighten the masses that have no understanding of how manures are 'digested' in the soil.

"Additionally, the nutrients and bacteria found in animal manure can seep into groundwater and runoff into waterways..."

BTW, manure runoff is easily remmedied.

rcreech
12-29-2010, 12:59 PM
Followup info on Chesapeake Bay Reference.

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/image.axd?picture=2009%2f8%2fsources_of_phosphorus_2009.jpg

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/image.axd?picture=2009%2f8%2fsources_of_nitrogen_2009.jpg

How can they determine the sources of N by a percentage?

N is N...and you can't determine the original material it was derives from.

This is interesting!

Smallaxe
12-30-2010, 09:28 AM
Wonder what would happen if I had 3 pails of well water, sitting around getting stagnant; with there being a fistful of dead rotting leaves in 1, a bit of granulated NPK, or just P, in the second, and nothing in the 3rd...
Which will have the quickest and most prolific algae bloom?

fl-landscapes
12-30-2010, 12:17 PM
Wonder what would happen if I had 3 pails of well water, sitting around getting stagnant; with there being a fistful of dead rotting leaves in 1, a bit of granulated NPK, or just P, in the second, and nothing in the 3rd...
Which will have the quickest and most prolific algae bloom?

seems like an experiment that could be performed fairly easy, why not do it and report the results? Because most fert apps are usually not just p I would go with a typical npk

Smallaxe
12-30-2010, 07:24 PM
seems like an experiment that could be performed fairly easy, why not do it and report the results? Because most fert apps are usually not just p I would go with a typical npk

Hahaha, in 5 more months, we should have pails outdoors that won't freeze over at nite. But yes I intend too. WI-DNR is outlawing debri removal in even more lake area, as the legislature is being pushed to outlaw various farm fields along with certain residential areas, while exempting others.

Though no one will pay any attention, when I talk about the experiment; I can still run off at the mouth... :)

HayBay
12-30-2010, 08:14 PM
You may be able to trade in the bucket with the biggest algae bloom for carbon credits soon.

fl-landscapes
12-30-2010, 08:33 PM
Hahaha, in 5 more months, we should have pails outdoors that won't freeze over at nite. But yes I intend too. WI-DNR is outlawing debri removal in even more lake area, as the legislature is being pushed to outlaw various farm fields along with certain residential areas, while exempting others.

Though no one will pay any attention, when I talk about the experiment; I can still run off at the mouth... :)

I sometimes forget we cant all go out barefoot boating in december:dancing: my bet npk most and fastest bloom, be sure to have plenty of sunlight

CHARLES CUE
12-30-2010, 08:48 PM
Hahaha, in 5 more months, we should have pails outdoors that won't freeze over at nite. But yes I intend too. WI-DNR is outlawing debri removal in even more lake area, as the legislature is being pushed to outlaw various farm fields along with certain residential areas, while exempting others.

Though no one will pay any attention, when I talk about the experiment; I can still run off at the mouth... :)

How about mason jars in a south facing window You guys up there do heat your houses

Charles Cue

redbuckcavs
01-10-2011, 09:12 AM
this week our prepaid renewalls go out. I wrote a seperate insert regarding this website and now the website is down pending renewal:dizzy: What should I do now?

Kiril
01-10-2011, 09:32 AM
this week our prepaid renewalls go out. I wrote a seperate insert regarding this website and now the website is down pending renewal:dizzy: What should I do now?

That was a pretty brave move given this is unpublished research and the results were hardly conclusive. Looks like a hard lesson learned. In the future you might consider using only peer reviewed research for your references and don't listen to people who misrepresent the results of studies in progress.