View Single Post
  #8  
Old 07-15-2013, 11:11 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorsaur View Post
I don't see how these facts demerit the usage of phosphorous fertilizer when used correctly (when not applied excessively).
You need to read the original post again for the purpose of the post. Furthermore, how many people actually soil test (assuming they sample correctly) to determine if P is needed and how much? How many people actually know how to identify a P deficiency in a plant? Based on what I see, both on this site and out in the field that number is at best 1 in 1000. So ignoring the reason for the post, tell me how do the facts apply here with respect to your statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorsaur View Post
The fact remains that phosphorous is a necessary mineral that is many times lacking in soil.
And you are basing this conclusion on what? An extensive review of soil chemical properties and current nutrient analysis from around the country? How about this website where soil tests people have posted more times than not show excess P?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorsaur View Post
Perhaps it would be better to discuss which types of fertilizer do not cause as much pollution. Rock phosphate?
Perhaps it would be better if some people would understand how nutrients can move off-site via surface and subsurface flow and potentially become a source pollution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorsaur View Post
"organic fertilizers remain more stable in soil, release slower, and are thus less likely to add to water pollution than synthetic fertilizers."
Perhaps you might want to conduct a search on pig and poultry manure as it applies to phosphorus pollution.

Last edited by Kiril; 07-15-2013 at 11:20 AM.
 
Page generated in 0.04480 seconds with 7 queries