Register free!
Search
 
     

Click for Weather
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-14-2013, 10:40 AM
Smallaxe Smallaxe is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 9,746
Phosporus/AM Fungi

P is a political issue that has mythology wrapped around it so tightly that it is hard to make sense of the realities...

I was lead to believe over the years that AMF was able to "MINE" P from otherwise inaccessible sources by the NM(non-mycor) plant hairs alone...
We are now also supposed to believe that P "LEACHES" though soils into waterways becuz of an experiment that seem to indicate that tiny amounts did indeed move through a box full of dirt...

Both of those exaggerated ideas have been promoted to really put a PC spin on outlawing P and attacking the food industry unnecessarily, IMHO...

I don't know if there can be an non-emotional school girl attitude, free, discussion about an Agenda 21 propaganda piece, but I'm more interested in what is sensible for lawncare and what ,,, if anything,,, can be done to help our lawns access adequate P without applying new sources 'all the time'...
[If this turns into another "bullet in my head" childish crybaby outburst,,, I will be leaving the discussion immediately(unfortunately this HAS TO BE ADDRESSED NOWDAYS)]

Currently my interest lies in the cycling of "Available P" through the clippings and leaves being mulched into the turf... I have my idea and a couple of others' thoughts on the subject, but still looking for a definitive non-PC reality of P in the lawn...
__________________
*
Now that I know that clay's texture(platelets) has nothing to do with water infiltration, percolation, or drainage
,,, I wonder what does...
*
  #2  
Old 07-14-2013, 11:22 AM
Victorsaur Victorsaur is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 72
Thanks for the topic Smallaxe. An NC state article stated that "Because soils in NC are so naturally low in Phosphorous it is usually safe to add 1 to 2 lbs. per 1000 sq. feet." I am of the opinion that there is such a thing as low phosphorous levels in soils unless some credible scientific data can prove otherwise. Banning phosphorous seems kind of ridiculous to me...
  #3  
Old 07-14-2013, 11:42 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,208
Now for some facts.

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/ph...migration.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3004/
  #4  
Old 07-14-2013, 01:08 PM
turfmd101 turfmd101 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: orlando fl
Posts: 467
Sounds like you believe everything you read,,,, wait,,,, maybe you don't. Guess it depends on the source. Who's the real source? Maybe we all live in conspiracy. Oh no,,, there's a knock at my door. Wait its just in my head. Maybe the most politically motivated are the gov politicos. Maybe that's alot of maybe's. Let me think man!
  #5  
Old 07-14-2013, 01:12 PM
Victorsaur Victorsaur is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 72
I don't see how these facts demerit the usage of phosphorous fertilizer when used correctly (when not applied excessively). The fact remains that phosphorous is a necessary mineral that is many times lacking in soil. Perhaps it would be better to discuss which types of fertilizer do not cause as much pollution. Rock phosphate?

"organic fertilizers remain more stable in soil, release slower, and are thus less likely to add to water pollution than synthetic fertilizers."
  #6  
Old 07-14-2013, 02:54 PM
turfmd101 turfmd101 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: orlando fl
Posts: 467
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). The fact remains that phosphorous is a necessary mineral that is many times lacking in soil. Perhaps it would be better to discuss which types of fertilizer do not cause as much pollution. Rock phosphate?

"organic fertilizers remain more stable in soil, release slower, and are thus less likely to add to water pollution than synthetic fertilizers."
I not on facebook so.... I'd like to "LIKE" this post on Lawnsite.
  #7  
Old 07-15-2013, 10:11 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,208
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 10:20 AM.
  #8  
Old 07-16-2013, 01:44 AM
Victorsaur Victorsaur is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
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?
I'm basing this concolusion on an article written by NC State University that states the soil in this area is so lacking in phosphorous that it is generally a good idea to add it. Not only this particular article, but advice from a professional that has been working in this area for many years and for big companies in the area. As soil is particular area by area, what other people post about levels of P won't necessarily reflect the natural soil type of Asheville's mountain soil which is naturally lacking in P, Mg, and Ca, also taken from an official NCSU article...

Furthermore most lawns in this area are infested with clovers. This is only possible because the tall fescue which is the standard grass around here cannot compete with their root systems which is a symptom of phosphorous lacking in soil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
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.
Let's be pragmatic. If I refuse to fertilize with P, people will continue to do so because they simply don't care. If, however, I was able to find a way to minimize the risk of runoff pollution while still providing P then I would be a lot more likely to make a positive change on the issue that you bring up. The local master gardener extension states that correctly applying P will not pose a risk of pollution. Although your concerns are legitimate we need to be realistic about what will reduce phosphorous pollution.
  #9  
Old 07-16-2013, 08:01 AM
Skipster Skipster is online now
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiril View Post
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.

Perhaps you might want to conduct a search on pig and poultry manure as it applies to phosphorus pollution.
This is an interesting thought experiment that introduces a lot of confounding factors. Maybe we could add to this research conclusions from several universities that found more P in runoff water from unfertilized soils than soils where P was added at 10# actual P/M for successive years.

Research has shown us that P doesn't move quite like other nutrients move and that mass flow doesn't have the same effect on P as it does on other nutrients.

There's a reason Auburn's Beth Guertal calls P "nature's slow release fertilizer."
  #10  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:23 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorsaur View Post
I'm basing this concolusion on an article written by NC State University that states the soil in this area is so lacking in phosphorous that it is generally a good idea to add it. Not only this particular article, but advice from a professional that has been working in this area for many years and for big companies in the area. As soil is particular area by area, what other people post about levels of P won't necessarily reflect the natural soil type of Asheville's mountain soil which is naturally lacking in P, Mg, and Ca, also taken from an official NCSU article...

Furthermore most lawns in this area are infested with clovers. This is only possible because the tall fescue which is the standard grass around here cannot compete with their root systems which is a symptom of phosphorous lacking in soil.
What does your area have to do with any other area? You made a broad ranging statement regarding P in soils, I questioned your conclusion and rightfully so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victorsaur View Post
Let's be pragmatic. If I refuse to fertilize with P, people will continue to do so because they simply don't care. If, however, I was able to find a way to minimize the risk of runoff pollution while still providing P then I would be a lot more likely to make a positive change on the issue that you bring up. The local master gardener extension states that correctly applying P will not pose a risk of pollution. Although your concerns are legitimate we need to be realistic about what will reduce phosphorous pollution.
Let's be clear about something here. I didn't bring the "issue" up, axe did, now in two different threads. I am merely demonstrating that statements made here are far from accurate, which is what you typically get in an axe thread.

Now let's really be pragmatic. Use soil tests and observed plant response to determine nutrient need, not a "let's put it down because everyone else does" type of management program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipster View Post
This is an interesting thought experiment that introduces a lot of confounding factors. Maybe we could add to this research conclusions from several universities that found more P in runoff water from unfertilized soils than soils where P was added at 10# actual P/M for successive years.
By all means post the research. While we wait .....

http://turf.unl.edu/pdfcaextpub/TurfP.pdf

http://www.usga.org/turf/green_secti...phosphorus.pdf
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 PM.

Page generated in 0.10256 seconds with 7 queries