Fertilizer bans

Discussion in 'Florida Lawn Care Forum' started by South Florida Lawns, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. HayBay

    HayBay LawnSite Senior Member
    from Ontario
    Posts: 846

    Not trying to get in the way here. I have my own lynching going on in another thread.

    I appreciate the link and I will be watching for the revised verison of this study to understand better.

    Quote: "I'm pulling it only because the paper that's going to replace it is even stronger," Payne said, referring to a new study that is expected this year. "I am trying to show our critics that I'm listening to them."


    Just found the link
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011
  2. HayBay

    HayBay LawnSite Senior Member
    from Ontario
    Posts: 846

  3. Ric

    Ric LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 11,956


    Thank You,

    I want to say if any one is not living and working in Florida then maybe they should stay out of the Florida Forum. However I welcome your input. I was spraying today and what posting I did was from my Truck.

    This is the link to the recommendation currently before Florida Legislation that I was referring to. It has not been pulled off publication in any way as Kiril might try and have us believe. I believe if you study the whole thing you will find it is a very reasonable law that while it does make me change some of my applications, I can live with. What Makes a good law is how well it is accepted by the public and this law is very acceptable as compared to the Black Out laws passed locally by those with less understanding and Liberal views. These Black out laws are being broken every day and can not be enforced.


    Here is the other Link I was referring to about the consequences of Fertilizer Black out. Once again it is still being Published and our California Whiz might have you believe it is not.


    Lawnsite was started with the intentions to share information the same as any team might work together. That means we should be ready to get our fellow members rebound and sink the shot together. Not sit on the side lines and roll marbles across the Playing field. I only hope those who are being attacked in several thread right now learn to Play ball.
  4. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    Actually Ric, I do. You have referenced that "study" time and time again. If that isn't the study, by all means let everyone know which one it is.

    I beg to differ. Pointing out inaccurate information is not "making people look like dummies"...... they did that all by themselves. If you don't want people to correct you, make sure your information is accurate. Pretty damn simple isn't it?

    Actually Ric ... you were the one who begged the mods to close the thread, not me. Furthermore, it was you who was in error and could not admit it. Funny how that works. Stop making excuses for the errors you have made.

    Don't really care how people see me. Accurate information is what I care about, and if you can't provide it, then either don't post or expect to be corrected.
  5. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    Actually .... I only have problems with a handful of people on this site who think they are authorities in fields they have little to no understanding of. Then when I correct those very same people, it always results in petty childish games. The fact that I care enough to endure the childish bullshiit you and others dish in my direction so people can get accurate information to use in their everyday work, not only is helping them, it is also NOT assuming they are too stupid to understand the truth ..... unlike some people here.

    Bottom line .... all I see here is you trying to make excuses for your childish behavior. So I tell you what ..... you and everyone else who has a problem with me, make use of the ignore option in your user control panel.
  6. Landscape Poet

    Landscape Poet LawnSite Gold Member
    Posts: 3,638


    Dr. Laurie Trenholm from U of F mentioned this in a recent Extension class I attended. She did not say anything about repealing it but she did indicate that they have or have had research under way that was showing leaching may not have been as bad as once thought on healthy turf.
  7. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    Ric, that is the exact "study" that I was referring to, the one you have referred to repeatedly, and the one the newspaper article I linked refers to and states was pulled. Now isn't that damned inconvenient. You might actually try to read the article.


    Titled "Unintended Consequences Associated with Certain Urban Fertilizer Ordinance," the study was published in March 2009 amid virulent debate at the Capitol -- and at the request of industry lobbyists.
    But last month, after the Herald-Tribune made calls to researchers, IFAS removed the study from its website.

    When asked why the institute would unpublish a study it views as scientifically sound, Payne said, "Maybe that wasn't the best strategy."

    This is the first time the institute has ever unpublished a study because of criticism, Payne said.

    "I'm pulling it only because the paper that's going to replace it is even stronger," Payne said, referring to a new study that is expected this year. "I am trying to show our critics that I'm listening to them."

    Care to comment Ric? Can you comment on why the "study" presented no research of their own?
  8. dishboy

    dishboy LawnSite Platinum Member
    from zone 6
    Posts: 4,234

    Puts finger in air............................

    yep it's January.
  9. rob7233

    rob7233 LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 861

    Yes, sir it is. LOL

    But really getting back to the study/results. The observation was (as I recall) and I'll do my best to summarize it - was that most SA (Floratam in this case) is actually environmentally friendly in it's ability to hold and filter fertilizer leachate and runoff. Compared to Zoysia, Floratam had at least a 50% advantage.

    Now all would agree, even with our summer downpours that no measurable fert leaching occurs at the recommended UF rates. Now during the summer, with all the sun and rain available, Floratam will use up it's stored and available nutrients due to it's "turbocharged" growth rate. Any FL LCO will tell you that Floratam is just about ready for x2 a week cuts from 7/15 to just about 9/1 every year. We all notice how the Floratam turns a lighter shade of green during this time thus the suggestion for an FE application vs. N.

    Now again, as I recall the research result was that during this time the root structure of the affected SA(Floratam) would decrease/retract as a response to the low fertility availability. This would lead to increased stress making it more prone to the disease and insect pressure(already higher during this time of year). This poorer quality of turf would have a lessened ability to act as a filter to leachates/runoff and be far less environmentally friendly.

    Additionally, it was also further suggested that because of the increase of turf damage would likely result in the increase applications of insecticides and fungicides furthering a negative impact on the environment. Lastly, it was also suggested contrary to conventional wisdom that a properly applied mid summer fert application would be more beneficial than a "black out" ban period. Granted this would be a hard sell due to fert apps not likely being done at the UF recommended rates.

    All this is a big deal since the Aquifer won't be able to support the population growth and we are now looking much harder to surface water sources. Most HO and even Professionals apply fert too heavy. If some is good, more must be better... I guess this is where the BMP cert process and fert license is supposed to come in !?? Even that since this last June BMP revision, the class has become more general.

    How many of you that apply fertilizer, actually measure, calculate and weigh out the product? Fast or slow release, less than 30%? Do you know how or have taken the time to calibrate your spreader? You may even know how much product to spread over what area but everyone's rate of application may be different(yeah, I know that's getting real particular). What if your particuliar spreader model is not listed on the bag? What's the right setting? Lastly, is the client willing to spend extra for the time involved to do those things and get it right? I'm thinking this is probably a real green thing to do. Maybe one of the most.

    Well, I hope I summarized the research that Ric was referring to. If need be I can probably get a link to the document. It wasn't some made up crap he heard in some newspaper, so stop the bickering. However, it does get pretty funny and entertaining at times...... :drinkup:
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2011
  10. Kiril

    Kiril LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 18,308

    He already provided the link to the paper he was referring to (see post #43), and it wasn't research, despite what Ric says.


    No data was presented and no study was conducted. It was merely a paper of supposition and opinion. Were some valid points made .... yes, but the paper does not support what Ric says it does, which is the reason I even bothered to post in this thread.

    People need to stop reading what they want to see, and read what is written.

Share This Page