Separate names with a comma.
Missed the live Ask the Expert event?
Not to worry. Check out the archived thread of the Q&A with Ken Hutcheson, President of U.S. Lawns, and the LawnSite community in the Franchising forum .
Discussion in 'Fertilizer Application' started by Victorsaur, Nov 9, 2013.
I would believe that is more of a EPA sediment issue than phosphate
A main source of phosphate in our water is from erosion nor runoff or leaching.
Keeping soil onsite does more to reduce contamination than banning phosphates in fertilizers.
I agree, Barry. Phosphate does not move--it sticks to the soil. When soil moves, phosphate gets into the water. Soil erosion is the main contributor. Heavy rains flowing down on newly plowed and fertilized fields can be a major problem. Law requires erosion dams on new construction around here.
That one basic point is so important and was overlooked or ignored by those who rushed to enact what was basically a trendy regulation here in Michigan. It began as municipal governments each having hearings, each with their own facts, then quickly jumped to the county level and finally to a statewide ban - all in an alarmingly short time. When I was in school we were taught that aerating was the best and only sure way to move P into the root zone because it is immobile in most soils.
Construction sites have been using dams around drains for a long time. Livestock waste runoff could stand another look. Guessing their PACs are stronger than turf's.
I had to file a plan for the Soil Erosion & Sedementation Act when I built our house and I am nowhere near water.
80% of the P in lakes, rivers and streams come from the leaves, twigs and branches dropping into the water... According to a CO university study that has been removed from the internet... if there is a similar study out there it would be good to find it... P is more political than it is real...
By mitigating soil run off, you are also reducing nutrient pollution of waterways. A good thing.
So these arbitrary laws that starve lawns and cause them to thin out don't do much good. I can see prohibiting the dumping of grass clippings down storm drains. I can also see doing whatever it takes to hold soil in place, including growing a vigorous stand of turf. Can't do that when a non agronomist or non horticulturist is writing fertilizer restrictions. I even see water restrictions as counterproductive because when the grass is killed by lack of water and it finally storms, what happens? Don't want pollution, you would have to concrete every square inch of land and send all run off water into a treatment facility.
That is exactly how it appears... lobbyists are able to convince the poly-ticks to do just about anything AND as long as you can put an environmental spin to it,,, the media will spin it to the masses as a good thing...
What really sickens me is that our DNR harasses anyone that works to remove all the leaves and debris from fresh water spring-fed lakes... having all this manure-like substance, undergoing anaerobic decomposition, building up along the shoreline is,,, "GREEN and natural"...
If every homeowner cleaned up his riparian zone the P would be soon eliminated from the waterways, the crisis would be over and the DNR would lose an excuse to regulate, dominate and intimidate the homeowners...
The greenie meanies would also no longer have a reason to tell people to kill their lawns. That's what doing things their way does. Create a weed patch with thin, half dead grass.
Most of the posters here have latched onto the easy (and emotionally charged) topic of P fertilization and water pollution, but everyone has glossed over the outlandish claims in the OP's article. I'm not sure what the point of the article is, but it is littered with inaccuracies.
1) What was his "experiment" about? He planted some plants directly into different P fertilizers? What does this accomplish?
2) Triple superphosphate (0-46-0) DOES NOT bond directly to Zn, Fe, or Mn.
This guy obviously does not understand soil chemistry or fertility. Soil P does not "lock up" other nutrients!
3) It is not a valid comparison to say that Texas A&M uses a different soil test extractant than private labs, so it must be wrong. The state soil lab usually chooses an extractant that will give the most representative results for the greatest number of soils in that state. A private lab chooses its extractant based on price, lab director's preference, and area of the country that most of its samples come from.
This is a very poorly writen article with no science behind it and no truth in it. We should be commenting on how anyone could write such nonsense and not be ostracized. The whole P fert and water thing is a seperate issue.