PDA

View Full Version : sythetic fert?


timturf
12-14-2003, 05:28 PM
Since the plant doesn't know the difference between a natural organic fert and a sythetis fert, what is wrong with a sythetic fertilizer?

tim

Grassmechanic
12-14-2003, 08:40 PM
Not a thing.....as far as the grass is concerned.

woodycrest
12-15-2003, 11:45 PM
The soil knows the difference.

Dchall_San_Antonio
12-17-2003, 12:19 PM
With the relatively recent discovery of 400 times as many species of soil microbe species as was previously thought to exist, the field of soil dynamic is suddenly wide open after hundreds of years. Most of that research ignores the interaction of the plants with soil microbes because the few species of soil microbes that reproduced in the laboratory were thought to be insignificant to the plants. Well, maybe those were, but what about the 24,900 other species in the garden?

I hope to see research in the near future that overturns the idea that the plants use the same chemicals regardless of their source. I think the NPK mentality we have had for well over 100 years is waaaay oversimplified. Heck (pardon my French) but all we need to support our bodies is sugar, protein, and a little fat. Why do we not simply eat refined sugar, tofu, and a sip of fat every day? It ain't that easy. We also need vitamins, minerals, and the unnamed microbes we have inside our bodies working to support our digestive systems.

I've said this many times, and I don't mind saying it again. Here's a list of things an organic program can do that no chemical can do. The beneficial microbes in the soil do the following.
1. Decompose plant residues and manure to humus.
2. Retain nutrients in humus.
3. Combine nitrogen and carbon to prevent nutrient loss.
4. Suppress disease.
5. Produce plant growth regulators.
6. Develop soil structure, tilth, and water penetration/retention.
7. Clean up chemical residues.
8. Shift soil pH to neutral and keep it there.
9. Search out and retrieve nutrients in distant parts of the soil.
10. Decompose thatch and keep it from returning.
11. Control nitrogen supply to the plants according to need.
12. Pull minerals out of inorganic soil components for plants.
13. Provide the exact chemical nutrients to the plant that the plant has evolved with rather than man's cheapest chemical approximation.
14. Provide exactly the required quantity of nutrients that the plant needs.
15. Provide the nutrients at exactly the right time that the plant needs them.

Item numbers 11, 13, 14, and 15 are the ones which apply to plants directly. The rest deal with soil mechanics. No chemical can do any of those things. It takes a living thing to interact with another living thing to do any of those. To be fair, no single microbe can do all of that either. In fact, it could be that it takes 100 or 1000 different species, one working right after the other, to do any one item in the above list - sort of like a microbiological assembly line. But at least it's real easy to get all the right microbes. The biology of the soil is very complicated.

At the same time, many chemicals inhibit the microbe's natural abilities to do these things. Herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides are all designed to kill various biological life. As a byproduct, they often kill off the beneficial microbes that are doing 1 through 15 above. Any break in the assembly line can interrupt the process, damage the mini ecosystem, and lessen the benefit of the organic methods. I currently believe that chemical fertilizers, properly applied, will do less damage to the microbes; however, there are organic researchers trying to convince me otherwise. So watch this space over the next few years and we'll see how that comes out.

timturf
12-17-2003, 01:20 PM
david,

you said, " chemical fert ( i'm assuming sythetic), properly applied, will do less damage to the microbes....." but will damage the microbes to some degree? What in the sythetic fert causes the damage?

tim

timturf
12-26-2003, 01:34 PM
Ok david,

nobody else is answering my question, so it's up to you
what in the sythetic fert cause damage to the microbes?

tim

heritage
12-28-2003, 12:41 AM
Using synthetic fertilizers is committing biocide.......This is what I am reading in a Organic soil fertility management book. If we are killing soil microbes when we fertilize with synthetics.....is this such a bad thing And are we killing all of them or just a few?
When NH4 is converted to NO3, isn't it done with the help of soil microbes? If we are killing these microbes then how does the Mineralization occur? If using synthetics was so bad then how come whe are still allowed to use them?
How about Nitroform (UF) Synthetic Fert. Its got carbon but it's man made........I love this product! Am I doing harm when I use it?
Soil microbes eat this stuff and what they excrete becomes available to the plant as a nitrogen source.....is this bad because it is a synthetic organic? If there are better products that are organic (natural ) that I can deep root feed into an ornamental plants root zone I would like to know what that product is also.

Thanks,
Pete D

timturf
12-28-2003, 08:37 AM
someboby help heritage and timturf!

what's in the sythetic fert that kills the microbes?

I like uf also

what organic soil book are you reading?

tim

Hamons
12-28-2003, 11:52 AM
Ok -- I haven't weighed in on this very good quesiton because I have been doing some research. Essentially what I hace found is whole lot of words with no research to back it up:



Things that I hjave read but cannot backup with research:

The salts in synthetic ferts kill microbes.

http://www.organicareinc.com/service_lawncare.htm
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/082103/garden0821.html
http://www.agricology.com/turfpages/organicturf.html
http://www.americanplantfood.com/HealthySoils.html
http://www.masterlandscapeinc.com/organiclawncare/
http://www.sugarlandgardenclub.org/Organic%20Fertilizers.doc


Looking at Purdue and K-State -- I have been unable to find any research to back up the claims that Salt kills microbes.


My synopsis from this research is that synthetics alone harm microbes because they do not feed them directly. By feeding the microbes directly with organic fertilizers we are increasing the numbers of microbes in the soil and therfore reaping there benefits.

I think synthetics can coexist in a natural organic based program.

timturf
12-28-2003, 12:32 PM
Ok all you organic guys, what is wrong with sythetic fert, not what is good about organic (natural, once a living from plant or animal material)?

tim

woodycrest
12-28-2003, 01:51 PM
timturf,

Synthetic fertilizers feed the grass. So the grass requires constant feeding for it to remain green and healthy.
Synthetic fertilizers have a warning label.wear gloves and long pants to apply, wash hands immediately after use...etc
A synthetic fertilizer spill will kill the grass.
Mother Nature survived the last few million years without synthetic fertilizer.

timturf
12-28-2003, 02:24 PM
Woodycrest

Not saying organic fert is bad, but what makes synthetic fert harmfull?

I've seen organic ( natural) fert spills kill grass!!

AGAIN, what is in the synthetic fert that is so harmfull to the microbes, soil, and plants?

woodycrest
12-28-2003, 03:23 PM
let me be more specific, i use cracked corn, 40kg for 8.95.
if it spills and smothers the grass it will kill it...but as long as the grass isnt smothered it doesnt harm it.

it is becomeing clear to me that defining organic/ natural means different things to different peoplem, and this causes confusion.
When i say organic i mean animal feed, corn, alfalfa, etc...not epsoma or turfmaize. Corn...not 'derived from' or based on' or' a bi- product of'....Im talking corn that you feed to animals. just so you know where my perspective is coming from.


Maybe harmful is the wrong word to use here.
Natures way works and has worked for millions of years...its all about balance. I think the synthetic fertilizers throw the balance out of whack. I dont think there is any one thing in the synthetic that is harmful, but in the big picture, it affects the balance.

heritage
12-28-2003, 04:10 PM
Timturf,
About 6 months ago I signed up for an organic certification here in new jersey. (I like to have certificates) They sent me a book by Steve Gilman. It's called: organic soil fertility management.
It's about 60 pages and quite basic.
chelsea green publishing company
white river junction, vermont
I hope someone will have a response about synthetic fert soon!

Pete D.

dan deutekom
12-28-2003, 10:01 PM
Tim

I too am waiting for an answer to your simple question. After following this thread I spent about 1/2 day on the net looking for the answer and the closest I have got is that the synthetic fertilizer kills microbes in the soil because it slowly changes the soil acidity. Supposedly thatch greatly increases with the use of synthetic fertilizers since the soil becomes too acidic for earthworms and microorganisms hence they are not available to break down the thatch back into beneficial organic compounds. But this was apparently over a long period of time. I could find no studies or proof of this, just lot's of articles saying to feed the soil and not the plant. I wish there was some honest research with published findings because so far there is no substantial proof one way or the other.

Dan

timturf
12-29-2003, 11:09 AM
dan,

I tend to agree, if sythetic fert mis applied, it will be harmfull to the microbes.

Different grass have differt thatching tendency's, but you will not have a thatch problem if fert is applied properly, even if its a sythetic fert. Over fert, especially with quick release fert incourages thatch.

woodycrest,

you talk about balance, please elaborate as to what you are refering to?

Balance to me, is geting soil chemistry correct, all base saturations in proper balance, what does balance mean to you.

Dan and hamons,
Have you guys research at michingan state u, they supposed to have all research catologed

tim

woodycrest
12-30-2003, 09:03 PM
i think balance is just what you said...''geting soil chemistry correct''....i agree with you, but instead of using calculations and applying the the reccomended amount of N P K or whatever, let nature finds its own balance.
So TIME is the most important factor. The balance my take time to achieve(using corn, mulch mowing and mowing high) but once that balance is achieved, it is becomes self sustaining. THe balance is acheived at NATURES SPEED.
i have seen the results, real , tanigble results. And they have been very good.

I could research til im blue in the face, but i would not be convinced that the research is correct until isee it with my own eyes. Maybe thats just me.
I am not doubting the validity of the research, im sure it is 100% correct. I guess i just see it differently. Maybe my outlook is too simple.
I am not a chemist , or an expert. THis is my personal perspective.

timturf
12-30-2003, 10:40 PM
But woodycrest,

If you are using natures recy. le materal ( corn, mulching mower, mowing height), what happens if these materials don't have the right nutrients to correct the soil chemistry?

What is the nutrients in corn meal, n-p-k, and others nutrients?

Nature will never balance the soil chemistry, unless the material contains the proper nutrients. You still have to calculate the n,p,k, and other nutrients.

timturf
12-30-2003, 11:43 PM
woodycrest,

you say corn, refering to crack corn?

The n,p,k of corn (grain) was 1.65-.65-.4; and corn gluten meal was 9-0-0, at least that was what I found from some web sites of davids

so if you are using crack corn, recycle mowing clipping and mowing hieght, how do you correct the soil chemistry thats low in potash?

heritage
12-31-2003, 04:25 PM
Timturf,
Potassium can be supplied by Potassium Chloride (natural organic) watch the salt index.... or you can use Sulfate of Potash Magnisia if you needed sulfur and magnesium as well.

For Phosphorous you could use soft Rock Phosphate (natural organic)

These are approved products listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI)

There are oraganic mineral products we can use in place of synthetics.....It would be a lot more labor intensive than what I think you and I use in todays market.
When the market shifts towards total organic with the use of prescription treatments of synthetic herbicides and biorational insecticides then I will go with the flow.
In the meantime I will continue to use synthetic products in a responsable manner much like yourself.

Can anyone tell us what is wrong with synthetics and why most of the world still uses them?

Pete D.

timturf
12-31-2003, 06:00 PM
Pete,

MY sources list potasium chloride ( muraite of potash ), potasium nitrate, potasium sulfate, potasium thiosulphates as sythetic /inorganic fert!

rock phosphate andsulphate of potash-magnesia ( langbeinite ) as an organic

I just can't believe omri would accept potasium chloride as a organic, it has a much higher salt index as potasium sulfate!

heritage
01-01-2004, 03:01 AM
Hi Tim,
I was suprised to see potassium chloride having an approved status. I just assumed because they also had this product listed as a natural mined product that it was a natural organic.
I use potassium sulfate myself....much lower salt index and it has sulfur. I too was suprised to see that potassium chloride was an natural organic.

Happy New Year!
Pete D :D

heritage
01-01-2004, 03:16 AM
Tim,
Potassium Chloride is inorganic...you were right!
What I want to know is why OMRI would approve this product Or was it a typo? I will look into it and let you know.
Pete D

heritage
01-01-2004, 02:29 PM
Woops,
Potassium Chloride is an allowed source in OMRI for Livestock Production Materials. But it is Regulated as far as Crop Production Materials goes.

Regulated (R) materials may be used on certified organic land and crops only with certain restrictions or limitations. OMRI considers materials Regulated when the substance is listed with a restriction on the National List, or there is a restriction described in the text of the USDA NOP rule. A number of materials may be used only after preferred alternatives were attempted and their use documented it the Organic System Plan. Both allowed synthetic and prohibited nonsynthetic materials that appear on the National List may have annotations that limit their use. Some materials may be used only from a specific source or if the material is free from contamination by prohibited substances. Check with the certification agency for policy regarding material evaluation and usage restrictions as certifiers may not allow use of a Regulated material if it does not comply with regulations for that material's usage.

R- potassium chloride (KCL) OMRI ANNOTATION: Only from mined sources. Murate of potash (potassium chloride) shall be used in a manner that prevents excessive chloride in soils. Soil testing may be required in both treated and untreated adjacent soils to verify absence of chloride build-up.

NOP RULE: Nonsynthetic and prohibited under 205.602(g): unless derived from a mined source and applies in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil.

Well it looks to me that even the Organic Materials Review Institute says it's O.K. to use synthetic products if the organic products don't get the job done.

This makes sense to me.

Now if we could only get Vegans to eat some meat sometimes they would not have to take Synthetic supplements to overcome their ANEMIA deficiency's.

Pete D.:laugh:

Dchall_San_Antonio
01-04-2004, 03:26 PM
Sorry for the delay in getting back to the LawnSite, folks. I took a couple weeks to visit my family in California and was incommunicado.

Organic fertilizers (bear with me on another review of organics) are basically dead things that used to be alive. These dead things contain protein, fats, sugars, and trace minerals that all living creatures need. Not all living creatures need all of the proteins, fats, sugars, and trace minerals but all living things (including animals and plants) need at least some of them. Nature has worked out all the details and balances. When microbial populations get unbalanced, disease results. This seems to be a relatively recent discovery for many (including me).

It has always been known that recycled manures (animal dung and dead plant products) provided fertility to plants. It has also always been known that fresh animal dungs smelled bad. That was the warning not to use them fresh. Post agricultural man heeded that warning and developed ways to process the fresh dungs until they smelled good. Without realizing what he was doing, he discovered the compost pile. After it smelled good, it was good for use on plants. Now we know that the recycled dung provides fresh microbes along with trace minerals IN THE PERFECT BALANCE. It has always been known that wood ashes were good for plants. Now we know they provide potash (or potassium) along with trace minerals.

Some centuries ago, several chemicals synthesized for the explosives industry were found to make plants grow. Chemists of the day analyzed the materials and found that the nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus would provide "nutrition" to the plants. The synthetic fertilizer industry was born.

Since chemists and not microbiologists were doing the analysis, the organic sciences have fallen waaaaaaaay behind on authentic research. The organic research fell behind because the necessary advances in DNA research were not to come until the 1990's. DNA analysis finally allowed the universities to find the rest of the microbes living in the soil and even ON THE LEAVES of plants. Before that we were stuck with thinking the microbial population was limited to what we could grow in petri dishes in the laboratory (about a dozen species). Now we know there are 25,000 species in farm soil, 45,000 species in old growth forest soil, and up to 20 layers of microbes living on the outside of plants exposed to the sun and elements. To start doing organic research now is like putting the horses back into the barn. All our research facilities have been contaminated (and I use that term in a scientific way) with chemicals for so many decades, there is no organic soil left to do research in. Just like you cannot expect milk to taste good in a glass half full of lemonade, you cannot do microbial research in soil that is laced with chemicals. We don't even know how long it will take to cleanse the soils to do the research.

So for hundreds of years, the chemists made synthetic soil amendments out of pure chemicals. Now that we finally know how many microbes are in the soil, we have a lot of questions. One of them has been asked in this thread...what is so bad about chemical fertilizers?

I don't think we know the answer to that yet - at least I don't. The soil borne microbial food chain is so complicated that it has been dubbed the "soil food web" by Dr Elaine Ingham. Some of the unknown issues include: the effect of bathing the microbes and microbial byproducts with the salty chemical fertilizers; the overall effect of breaking the food chain (or food web) by removing some species of microbes; the effect of not adding any real microbial food (protein, sugars, and trace minerals as are found in the dead organic things); the effect of removing the sugars (alone) without replacement as the pure chemicals are used up by the plants; and the effect of changing the balance of major nutrients (protein, sugar, potash, and phosphorus) versus the trace minerals (the pure chemicals do not replace any of the the protein, sugar, or minerals). These are the ones I can think of in my hasty attempt to answer this question.

More recently some chemical fertilizer makers are adding trace minerals into their mix. Who knows if they have the right proportions? At least they are trying, and I give them much credit for that.

My personal opinion is that the chemical fertilizers are not harmful when used according to the directions AND if they are not used with the -icides. The biggest problem with commercial synthetic fertilizers is the homeowner who doesn't take time to learn about the products he uses. Over application is way too commonplace. More is always better. THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!

So to summarize, I don't think there is a good answer to the question, yet. At the snail's rate organic research is progressing, we'll all be retired before the answer is finally agreed upon. In the mean time, I have found a group of organic fertilizer that I love using and don't feel the need to bring bags of synthetic chemicals onto my property anymore.

I, too, have seen over application of organic materials cause a rare but serious problem. I have seen a gross over application of compost (about 1 inch deep or 3 yards/ksqft) kill a bermuda lawn. If I hadn't seen it happen in front of my eyes, I would have thought that was impossible (to kill bermuda with anything!!!), but it did. I have also seen an over application of blood meal kill just about anything. I stay very strictly away from blood meal simply because I don't know how to use it reliably, and I also do not need it. The vegetable proteins are plenty strong enough for me.

Once again, this forum is not really here to debate the synthetic versus organic argument; however I do see some benefit for the organic applicator in reading about the issue. This thread has stayed very on target and collected - unlike most of the other threads I've read about it (elsewhere on LawnSite). Y'all are doing great here!! I just wish I had been here over the holidays.

timturf
01-10-2004, 11:33 PM
david,
thanks for the reply,
hope your trip was enjoyable

Computer has been down since 01/01/04
tim

timturf
01-16-2004, 08:25 PM
what is wrong with a sythetic fertilizer?

Can't seem to find any research to say anything is!!!!!!!

I WOULD imagine that most sythetic fertilizers have a poor carbon to nitrogen ratio Also believe the high salt index in MOST, BUT NOT ALL sythetic fertilizers are harmfull to microbes in the soil. Yes, most sythetic fertilers do lower ph over time, that is one of the reason for a soil test, to test ph, and base saturation! If you get soil chemistry right, I believe you can grow great turfgrass with an all sythetic fert program, BUT I PREFER to use a combination of natural organic fertilizer with a sythetic fertilizer
What is everyone's thoughts?

trying 2b organic
01-17-2004, 01:08 AM
Maybe its not what is wrong with synthetic but what is so right about organic. It seems we owe a lot to the good bugs in our lawn, less desease, healthier plants, better drought tolerance, less thatch. Lawns that add organic matter or organic fertilizer have more of these good bugs. I like the idea of bridge products to make the costs more reasonalbe and yet have the benifit of feeding the soil as well the plants. btw all of the above i have learned from the moderator on this forum but have since read about elsewhere such as soilfoodweb etc. Its the main reason compost works so well in our gardens, compost isnt a fertilizer, it is a soil conditioner, but mostly it is microbes and food for microbes, food for microbes means food for the roots.

Grassmechanic
01-17-2004, 10:01 AM
tim - I'm with you. I believe a combination of organic and synthetic is the way to go. I don't think you can find a nitrogen source that beats Nutralene or BC nitroform.

timturf
01-17-2004, 10:34 AM
Mike
what is bc? I know nitrofrom.

some sythetic feed microbes!

TEXAS DEALER
01-17-2004, 11:31 AM
timturf

What do you think about this nitrogen product?
nitro 30 made by growth products www.growthproducts.com

timturf
01-17-2004, 11:48 AM
Looks like a good liquid fert, it contains uf, which I like

Don't feed turf with liquid fert, too costly!
what does a gallon of this material cost?
1 gallon feeds 3m at 1 lbsn/m

TEXAS DEALER
01-17-2004, 12:46 PM
I sell it for $12.50 a gal. I have a spray company that only
targets high end customers.

heritage
01-17-2004, 02:18 PM
BC stands for BLUE CHIP Nitroform........Awesome Product for thatch reduction and on sandy soil irrigated turf.

Pete D.

timturf
01-17-2004, 02:47 PM
texas dealer,

$12.50 divided by 3m = $4.166/m for one lbsN/m

expensive

pete,

nitrofrom (UF), is an awsome product
I incorporate into my program

Dchall_San_Antonio
01-22-2004, 10:59 AM
Regarding Nitro 30: keep in mind that it is not an organic material. It happens to have the same chemical formula as an organic product but the way the rules are written, if you are using it, you cannot be organic. Go figure!

Be that as it may, if you use it, be sure you dilute it first. It will burn. The burning is the main reason I stay away from it. I prefer the dry ground seed types of fertilizers.

timturf said, I WOULD imagine that most sythetic fertilizers have a poor carbon to nitrogen ratio

Synthetic fertilizers have zero carbon, so the answer to that is a resounding yes! One of the issues (not necessarily a problem) is that the use of synthetic fertilizers does nothing to replace carbon in the soil but it allows carbon to be used up. The more radical organiphiles call this effect, "burning up the carbon." So you might hear that term.

The carbon they are talking about is sugar, cellulose, starches, and a few others. If you remember back to school, sugar is a carbohydrate containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in varying amounts depending on what kind of sugar it is (sucrose, lactose, fructose, etc. are all sugars with different chemical compositions of C, H, and O). Other carbons in the soil include starches and old plant material consisting of cellulose. Some of these carbohydrates literally dissolve in water and others cannot be decomposed for years. They all have a place in the soil as food for various beneficial microbes. The carbohydrates are replaced by the plants as they produce soluble sugars from photosynthesis and insoluble sugars in the cellulose structures of their roots.

So what the more radical organiphiles are saying is that repeated use of synthetic fertilizer depletes the carbon in the soil without replacing it and once it is gone, it is gone. Well, the plants replace it. Plants actually manufacture it by photosynthesis. They take carbon dioxide out of the air and convert it into sugars, starches, and cellulose. Maybe these folks are saying that the plants cannot replace it as quickly as they deplete it with the doses of synthetic fertilizer. Certainly everything was in balance before the use of synthetic fertilizers. I don't know but I'm watching the literature for something to tell me.

timturf
01-22-2004, 01:24 PM
Some sythetic fertilizers DO CONTAIN CARBON!

Didn,t reread all of this thread, but I believe nobody said nitro 30 was an organic. I was going to call him on it myself. ACCORDING TO CHEMIST DEFINITION IT IS AN ORGANIC!!!!!!!!!!

heritage
01-22-2004, 11:40 PM
Dchall,

Nitro 30 is 4.5% urea and 25.5% Methylene Urea.....Methylene Urea has carbon and has a medium chain length
C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N

Urea Formaldehyde has carbon and it is formed by reacting Urea and Formaldhyde. It has a long chain length
C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N-C-N

The longer the chain length the slower the release rate...

Natural Organics tend to have longer chain lengths like the above synthetics.

These synthetic fertilizers are available to plants Exclusively by soil Microbes just like organics. The 4.5% urea in nitro-30 is a small approprate amount of quickly available N for a quick response.

Synthetic urea is available quickly and often over applied and in my opinion often misunderstood and misused. This is a problem in the world of synthetics.

As you know fertilizer that we apply on our soils does not feed the plant. Sunlight,C02,H20....Photosynthsis Makes sugar which Feeds the plant. We apply Elements that are in short supply in the soil. Plants need 16 elements for growth and 13 are in the soil and 3 in the air. If even ONE of these elements are deficient Photosynthisis will slow as will plant growth.

Generally speaking most natural organics (once living) have most of the 13 elements plants need in an appropriate balance as where typical synthetic blends may only have 3-6 of the needed elements....N. P. K. S. Mg. Fe. Things can get out of balance a lot faster using synthetics UNLESS you really know what you are applying and why. When you apply a natural organic and all of a sudden you get a growth response that you never got from a synthetic it's because you applied an element that was in short supply up until that point.
Could have been Ca. When was the last time you did a soil test and took a look at your Base Saturation Percentage?
Learn a bit about soil science...plant physiology... When you make an application of fert get to know what you are applying and why.

As photosynthisis occurs some of the sugars are stored up in the plants roots (carborhydrate storage) and are saved to help the plant fight off disease and stress. When synthetic urea is overapplied at the wrong time the grass grows at a high rate and uses up carbohydrates at a higher rate than the plant can make sugar through photosynthsis thus disease and stress are more likely in which for some leads to more use of fungicides and lawn renovations......Profits before people. (and microbes too) Not to mention more insect feeding because grass blades have a higher protein content and insects like protein!

One exception to this that I am aware of is that on cool season turf when the daylight hours shorten and there is a shift in plant growth from the topgrowth to the root system (fall) it is a great time to use urea because it is not microbial dependant (soil temp below 55F...little microbe activity) and it is used to help the plant store more sugar in the root system.

Synthetics are not bad if used properly.

Pete D.

timturf
01-23-2004, 12:04 AM
good post pete d. ,

I wonder what nitro 30 is? Look at label, derived from methylene urea, then look under product describtion, reacted uf polymer

SO IS IT methylene urea or uf ( nitroform) ?

heritage
01-23-2004, 12:12 AM
Timturf,

Nutralene is a granular form of methylene urea. More good Stuff from the makers of Nitroform. Look up Organiform.....:)

Pete D.

timturf
01-23-2004, 12:21 AM
Pete,
methylene urea is granular form ( scotts used to use it) shortest release time, then nutraline longer, then organicform, then nitroform

I tryed to get some fert blend with organic form, but no luck! Not many people handling, and when talking to nugro, I was under the impression it wouldn't be around very long, not much demand

trying 2b organic
01-23-2004, 03:33 AM
Sugar is obtained through photosynthesis but the roots use fertilzer to obtain protien right? What do microbes feed plant roots. Nitrogen- Phosphorus-Potassium and the other trace minerals. The plant needs these in addition to sugar. Ok im learning. ty

JDUtah
06-18-2008, 08:51 PM
I found this thread in searching and am even more interested now.

I am trying to find (just like these guys were 5 years ago) a reputable study that shows synthetic ferts actually do kill microbes. I have read from people even in this forum that the ferts feed the microbes and NEED the microbes to 'deliver' their nutrients to the plant anyway?

In that case they should be helping the microbes?

So... Are there any studies since then that show that microbial life in synthetically fertilized soils is actually reduced?

PS, I am still an advocate and interested in organics, and I do know that my problem lawns that we mow (disease infestations) are the ones treated by Scotts and Chem-lawn for over 2 years...

but any data over theory?

Stewards of the Land
06-19-2008, 09:11 PM
Tim,

I will answer your question in common and simple terms..

Synthetic fertilizers destroy the balance within the soil and kill the soil microbes! The synthetic chemicals do a number of things within the soil that are very detrimental to the Soil Food Web. First the synthetics dissolve the biochemical that defines fertility within soil known as Humus, thus releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere! Second the synthetics force the beneficial fungi known as Mycorrhizae, both endo(internal) and ecto(external) to detach from the root zone thus killing them because they no longer have a purpose. This association of fungi and helper bacteria are extremely important to the vitality of that soil and plant as they scavenge for nutrients and water from a greater surface area then the root system thus feeding the plant. Thirdly all fertilizers have a salt index which is left behind once the nutrients have leached into the soil. Salt is extremely bad for the soil in the high amounts that are left because the salts sequester water from the soil and will pull it out of the plant causing what we call burning!

So with these three main factors in place what has just been created is an addiction to that fertilizer, desertification of that soil, and a hydroponic state. Why? Once the Mycorrhizae have been removed from the plant the only way that plant can absorb those nutrients is by having continual moisture in that soil. By having continual moisture you are creating a hydroponic state. Desertification transpires because the Humus Pipeline(R) has been shattered by the destruction of the Mycorrhizae and the dissolving of Humus. Its just that simple!

There are tens of thousands of papers published in journals of science that validate the statements I just made. So needless to say this data is verifiable and not debateable! I hope this helps to answer your question...

Regards,

JDUtah
06-19-2008, 10:03 PM
Stewerds, I know I knocked you in the other thread, but your arguments here are almost digestable. In fact you might have pulled a little "I see" head nod out of me.

Thank you, as I am the one that resurrected this thread (Tim asked it 5 years ago)

Be careful stating that there are thousands of articles out there to back you up. That is poor and lazy 'proof' that what you say is true. Best wishes.

JDUtah
06-19-2008, 10:47 PM
How do the synthetic ferts kill the microbes? In fact, the microbes still have to feed on the synthetic ferts and make it available to the plants. Hence they feed not kill the microbes.

Can you reference a study that shows synthetic ferts dissolve humus?

I almost bought the argument that synthetic ferts cause the Mycorrhizae to leave the root zone. Can you expand?

The Mycorrhizae rely on the plant for simple sugars, and in turn give the plant nutrients and help it absorb water... but... simple sugars are not found in synthetic fertilizers... so why would the fungi leave the root system that is providing something it needs?

The fungi will not detach because they think.. "I have no purpose"... they still do... their purpose is to eat the simple sugars that the plant manufactures. Also, the plant still may need help absorbing phosphate ions... Umm, i bite that argument less and less

Salts huh? I can accept that salts keep water from plants, (Hygroscopic Water) but that does not relate to microbial life. ??

Smallaxe
06-20-2008, 08:38 AM
Growing potatoes in sand with lots of water and synthetic ferts turn the sand into an organic rich mush after numerus years. The potatoes are unsavory, IMHO, but the sand is definately changing for the better.
Of course it is still sand. Let it sit for a year and the sun will burn away all the humus and you will be back to square one.

There may not be a lot of bacteria living on a bar of AB soap, but the soapy water that the baby is bathed in certainly is filled with bacteria and when you toss it out on to the lawn the grass will greenup in that area. And it will do so without killing any fraction of the microherd.

We can't keep bacteria out of hospitals, off of forks and spoons, but we can kill bacteria in the dirt!!! Even sterilize it? :laugh:

'Somehow the organic movement needs to analyse science and put the religious belief system in their own closet. Nothing cosmic about the microherd - they multiply like rabbits.

Kiril
06-21-2008, 10:00 AM
First the synthetics dissolve the biochemical that defines fertility within soil known as Humus, thus releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere!

Humus is not the only thing the defines soil fertility. Also, please provide peer reviewed literature on this.

Second the synthetics force the beneficial fungi known as Mycorrhizae, both endo(internal) and ecto(external) to detach from the root zone thus killing them because they no longer have a purpose.

Once again, provide peer reviewed literature on this.

Thirdly all fertilizers have a salt index

If a fertilizer is not a salt, does it have a salt index?

which is left behind once the nutrients have leached into the soil.

Huh

Salt is extremely bad for the soil in the high amounts

Now this is a statement that needs no reference.

So with these three main factors in place what has just been created is an addiction to that fertilizer, desertification of that soil, and a hydroponic state. Why? Once the Mycorrhizae have been removed from the plant the only way that plant can absorb those nutrients is by having continual moisture in that soil. By having continual moisture you are creating a hydroponic state. Desertification transpires because the Humus Pipeline(R) has been shattered by the destruction of the Mycorrhizae and the dissolving of Humus. Its just that simple!

Back to the books my friend.

There are tens of thousands of papers published in journals of science that validate the statements I just made.

Not likely, but I am interested in seeing your sources of information.

Stewards of the Land
06-22-2008, 12:51 AM
"What we learned is that after five decades of massive inputs of residue carbon ranging from 90 to 124 tons per acre, all of the residue carbon had disappeared, and there had been a net decrease in soil organic carbon(Humus) that averaged 4.9 tons per acre. Regardless of the crop rotation, the decline became much greater with the higher nitrogen rate," Journal of Environmental Quality - 2007.

"Humus which is a conglomeration of Humic acids (HAs) are remarkable brown to black products of soil chemistry that are essential for healthy and productive soils and are what define fertile soil." - Journal of Chemical Education - 2001.

Humus is the largest sequesteror of carbon known to man!

"Unfortunately, Arbuscular Mycorrhizae fungi populations in soils have been diminished by modern agricultural practices. But they can still make important contributions to productivity in systems where little or no chemical fertilizers and pesticides are used, such as in organic farming." - USDA ARS ERRC - 2006

Fertilizers, manures, and compost all have a salt index as this is a well known fact within the scientific community! Sorry!

Actually sir/madam I believe it is time for you to do some studying as new studies are being published faster then it is implemented into our education system or to the mass public. Please research it for yourself!

And yes there are over 67,000 published papers in scientific journals that validate the claims made about Humus and Mycorrhizae! You may not know this but there has been over 100 years of research done on Mycorrhizae alone.. so to say "Not likely" is like saying grass isnt green!

Logic would tell me that it would be foolish of myself to come onto this wide spread forum and blow smoke up everyones rear! The comments Ive made are valid and are based off of accurate and scientific efficacy. Im sharing what I know, if you care not to listen that by all means is your right, but lets get off the ego trip and show others with new trains of thought, ideas, or even science for that matter, a bit of respect!

Thank You!

treegal1
06-22-2008, 02:13 AM
:clapping::clapping:

i got to see how this unfolds, tell ya what it sure is interesting, lots to see and to research, keeps me up, if ya know what i mean!!!

Smallaxe
06-22-2008, 09:30 AM
As I understand AM fungi they require a host that they can attach to and thrive. The lack of hosts means a lack of AM Fungi.
There is an effort to innoculate annual plants with the corresponding AM Fungi and it has yielded promising results. With an early start AM fungi will indeed increase yeilds along with SynFerts or Petroleum Based ferts.

The basic question here is: Does the SynFerts kill the soil life or is that claim simply "blowing smoke up ..."?

An honest answer to just that question shows respect that you talk about. BS and misinformation shows disrespect.
Crop rotation and cultivation is what doesn't give the AM Fungi a chance to grow (agricultural practices) not ferts. That according to your own statement.

Kiril
06-22-2008, 11:35 AM
Your quote from the press release (which I did read shortly after it was released) on the study done at the Morrow Plots is not correct (you incorrectly added "(humus)" to the quote) and is taken well out of context. FYI, humus does not comprise all SOC.

Furthermore, it would appear the humus related section of your post is based on that single press release, which specifically addressed decades of high nitrogen inputs on intensively farmed plots. There is no mention of humus in the abstract (http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/6/1821) and the only mention of humus in the actual published paper is as follows.

Ample fertilizer N was believed to promote humus formation by narrowing the C/N ratio of carbonaceous residues and by providing a major elemental constituent (Lee and Bray, 1949; Millar and Turk, 1951; Melsted, 1954).

There is also nothing remotely related to humus being dissolved by synthetic fertilizers presented in the published paper. In fact, they specifically stated in the abstract

These findings implicate fertilizer N in promoting the decomposition of crop residues and soil organic matter and are consistent with data from numerous cropping experiments involving synthetic N fertilization in the USA Corn Belt and elsewhere, although not with the interpretation usually provided.

Also worth noting here that the conclusions of that study have been formally questioned (http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/37/3/739).

[I]Humus is the largest sequesteror of carbon known to man!

Actually, oceans are the largest carbon dioxide sink.

Fertilizers, manures, and compost all have a salt index as this is a well known fact within the scientific community! Sorry!

If it is not a salt, it has no salt index. All the items you have listed can contain salts, hence the salt index.

There are tens of thousands of papers published in journals of science that validate the statements I just made.

A search of the Agricola DB using the search phrase "soil organic matter chemical fertilizers" yields only 244 hits. JEQ shows only 246 related to soil organic matter from the Soil Science Society of America Journal, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vadose Zone Journal, Crop Science, and Agronomy Journal.

A search of the Agricola DB using the search phrase "mycorrhizae synthetic fertilizers" yields 1 hit, and for the search phrase "mycorrhizae chemical fertilizers" 37 hits.

Bottom line, your quotes did not address the statements you made that I asked you to provide references for. Please provide links as requested to the research literature which substantiate the following statements.


First the synthetics dissolve the biochemical that defines fertility within soil known as Humus, thus releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere!

Second the synthetics force the beneficial fungi known as Mycorrhizae, both endo(internal) and ecto(external) to detach from the root zone thus killing them because they no longer have a purpose.

So with these three main factors in place what has just been created is an addiction to that fertilizer, desertification of that soil, and a hydroponic state.

By having continual moisture you are creating a hydroponic state.

Desertification transpires because the Humus Pipeline(R) has been shattered by the destruction of the Mycorrhizae and the dissolving of Humus.

treegal1
06-22-2008, 11:45 AM
now ya done it, I crashed my computer googling that much stuff. still love it, I knew this was going to be good:weightlifter:

easygrass
06-22-2008, 01:00 PM
I just wanted to post this info for everyone hope you enjoy this.



HUMUS - Humus is defined as a brown to black complex variable of carbon containing compounds not recognized under a light microscope as possessing cellular organization in the form of plant and animal bodies. Humus is separated from the non-humic substances such as carbohydrates (a major fraction of soil carbon),fats, waxes, alkanes, peptides, amino acids, proteins, lipids, and organic acids by the fact that distinct chemical formulae can be written for these non-humic substances. Most small molecules of non-humic substances are rapidly degraded by microorganisms within the soil. In contrast soil humus is slow to decompose (Degrade) under natural soil conditions. When in combination with soil minerals soil humus can persist in the soil for several hundred years. Humus is the major soil organic matter component, making up 65% to 75% of the total. Humus assumes an important role as a fertility component of all soils, far in excess of the percentage contribution it makes to the total soil mass.


http://humusandcarbon.blogspot.com/

DeepGreenLawn
06-22-2008, 02:14 PM
Other than yalls soil food web person would it be safe to say that we have some of the most knoweldgeable organic people around here at this site?

JDUtah
06-22-2008, 06:09 PM
Growing potatoes in sand with lots of water and synthetic ferts turn the sand into an organic rich mush after numerus years. The potatoes are unsavory, IMHO, but the sand is definately changing for the better.
Of course it is still sand. Let it sit for a year and the sun will burn away all the humus and you will be back to square one.

There may not be a lot of bacteria living on a bar of AB soap, but the soapy water that the baby is bathed in certainly is filled with bacteria and when you toss it out on to the lawn the grass will greenup in that area. And it will do so without killing any fraction of the microherd.

We can't keep bacteria out of hospitals, off of forks and spoons, but we can kill bacteria in the dirt!!! Even sterilize it? :laugh:

'Somehow the organic movement needs to analyse science and put the religious belief system in their own closet. Nothing cosmic about the microherd - they multiply like rabbits.


Very obvious but looked over points when it comes to organics.. Made me think.. "Oh duh" a couple times. TY

JDUtah
06-22-2008, 06:14 PM
Wow, I'm getting left behind in this debate, dang social life and church. :)

Kiril, can you link to the search engines you used for those article searches?

DeepGreenLawn
06-22-2008, 06:42 PM
social life? What's that?

JDUtah
06-22-2008, 09:13 PM
social life? What's that?

Well... its... umm... I don't know, ask my friends.

DeepGreenLawn
06-22-2008, 09:54 PM
friends? you'll have to explain these things to me some time.

treegal1
06-22-2008, 10:04 PM
Is that what everyone does on these ?weekends?? sounds un usual.

DeepGreenLawn
06-22-2008, 10:07 PM
What I do on weekends is work. If I am not at the fire station I am out spraying/cutting grass. I think I may be starting to get burnt out. Time for a weekend vacation. My partner is taking 3 days off, that is really 11 days away from the station. It would be nice to take off work for that long wouldn't it?

Kiril
06-22-2008, 10:43 PM
Kiril, can you link to the search engines you used for those article searches?

?? Goggle :)

JDUtah
06-23-2008, 02:13 AM
Haha, ok. I thought there was a site that let you acces/search the databases directly.

Kiril
06-23-2008, 02:42 AM
Haha, ok. I thought there was a site that let you acces/search the databases directly.

What database? Agricola (http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/)?

JDUtah
06-25-2008, 08:39 PM
What database? Agricola (http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/)?

Thanks much