A sermon aimed at the choir

[rcnaylor]

Seems like us yard whackos might need to be thinking about, talking about and acting on this kind of info:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151314.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120927.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUxb1UzRPO8

[rcnaylor]

PS Its really not intended to be preaching so much as asking. What can/should lawnowners be doing about these problems and concerns?

[Michael Wise]

Good sermon, IMO.

I WANT to go with organic feedings, but I just didn't see the results I wanted to see.

Which raises some more questions with me in regards to nitrogen fertilization.

Is urea better for the environment then other forms of nitrogen fertilization? Does slow release sulfer coated urea change things for the better in terms of nitrogen loss?

What about a product like this? http://www.nutrisphere-n.com/index.aspx Is it different than ppscu?

Or am I barking up the wrong tree altogether in terms of nitrogen fertilizer impact on the environment?

[rcnaylor]

First thing, I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the issue of nitrogen (and/or nitrogen "pollution").

As the article above indicates on lawn soil, most of it is taken up in the soil, especially if not over-applied. So, my approach to urea is to use it ONCE a year. Most years I use any kind of chemical nitrogen once a year (urea as the last feeding). And I use it at a rate of no more than 1 and quarter pound of nitrogen per 1000 and water it in well. Sometimes the devil really is in the details. I hope that such moderate practices results in it going where I want without "polluting".

However, it seems there may need to be additional studies on how much escapes in to the atmosphere and/or turns in to nitric oxide.

From what I remember seeing so far, there is less risk of the kind of pollution and damage discussed above from use of organics instead of chemical nitrogen sources (quick acting or coated/slow release).

Of course, I think some of the best advise is still 1) moderation in all things, and 2) whatever you put on your yard, be responsible enough to put it out right. The little things may make a big difference.

[MorpheusPA]

If you follow bag rate and don't overdo it on your lawn, the issues will be quite minor. Plus a well-established stand of turfgrass is very, very good at reducing pollutants. It's the thin raggedy stuff that has the major issues.

It's kind of a misnomer to say that organics don't pollute. They do, twice. Once in the growing when fertilizer is usually used (unless you're using an organically-grown crop as your fertilizer). Once again when it breaks down on your lawn and the nitrogen flips into available form. At that point, it can be leached out into water supplies. Fortunately, with a healthy population of bacteria the competition is fierce for those nitrogen ions.

Of course, nitrogen fertilizers pollute at the factory and again in the soil, so that's not a gain either.

[rcnaylor]

I agree. Pretty much everything in modern society pollutes. People think of electric cars as non-polluters, but of course, making the cars causes pollution. Making and getting rid of the batteries pollute. And, most of the electricity made creates pollution.

Same goes with organics. But, also the same over all considerations. Are there ways to do things that are better than worse? As you note, Morph, feeding the soil organisms seems less likely to have run off and create fertilizers that gassify quickly into the atmosphere during and shortly after application like some of the chemical fertilizers.

Especially since there are millions of us (yard people), the "greenest" way would seem to be moderation. Then knowledgeable and appropriate application techniques. Those who use fungicides, pesticides, herbicides, probably even all the more important.

[MorpheusPA]

Being careful about fertilizers is important; we've already got dead zones in our oceans, and that's not a Good Thing at all. Similarly, not being hysterical about it is reasonable, as long as your fertilizer apps are reasonable. If you must be unreasonable, do it organically if possible.

Honestly, I'm seriously considering changing my rhetoric from "organic feeding" to "grain and waste-stream fertilizer feeding." Organic has such a hippy-dippy connotation attached to it. Grains and waste-stream items (feather meal, Milorganite) fertilize no less than synthetics do, the mass is just higher.

Overuse of pesticides, etc., is probably a bigger hit to the environment. I usually recommend spot spraying to reduce that, and only using it when necessary (annuals not surviving frost well, for example). Organics play a role there too. A good organic base means the chemicals tend to get locked into it, and there's always a species of bacteria that considers almost any chemical lunch. The key is the bacteria finding it before the chemicals hit the groundwater. That's more likely with a good organic matter level.

[formicburn]

My extra fert gets washed down the sewer, I don't recycle, I pay a lot of money to USE water in the summertime, and when libs get angry, I smile and enjoy life so much more.

[rcnaylor]

Just a thought.

Any chance your grandkids might be "libs"? Or, even conservatives who wonder why our generation killed the oceans and rain forests just to prove to libs we could?

[John_in_SC]

It's a good idea to think about it... To actually evaluate the impacts of the things we do.... To think about things like - is all that Nitrogen really necessary? Where does it go? Is it doing the things that I want fertilizer to do? I think if you are on a fairly flat lawn that is well drained - you will have almost everything soak into the ground unless it floods... and then you have other things to worry about.... like the neighbor's septic tank overflowing....

But... When you live on a slope like I do - it's more of a concern... Fertilize right before a big rain and it all runs off into the creek.... I have tried to be pretty cautious about pesticides and herbicides - as they could run off and cause trouble in the creek and the lake it runs into... I have even tried to be more careful with the fertilizer.... I also heaped up a little berm at the end of my lawn before it hits the forest out back - to help that runoff soak in rather than wash downhill....

Products wise - I honestly wish there were more sources out there for "Reprocessed waste fertilizer" like Bay state or Milorganite.... How come they don't have Atlanta-organite or Greenville-organite or Charlotte-organite or Tampa-organite? It would be a good way to get rid of those waste streams..... Put them to good use....

[MorpheusPA]

Products wise - I honestly wish there were more sources out there for "Reprocessed waste fertilizer" like Bay state or Milorganite.... How come they don't have Atlanta-organite or Greenville-organite or Charlotte-organite or Tampa-organite? It would be a good way to get rid of those waste streams..... Put them to good use....

The answer is always "expense." That facility would be kind of pricey, although Milwaukee certainly seems to have done well with it. Still, the start up costs can't be small.

I'd be a major fan of reprocessing sewage reasonably locally myself. Instead of then having to ship it halfway across the nation to me, I could use the source closest and also conserve the gas--which would also make the product cheaper.

[andy10917]

No. I spoke to the grand guru of NY's biosolids program about two years ago, while searching for the equivalent of the "Bay State" program. He told me that it was a political minefield that no politician would even speak about. Interestingly, there is a component of the environmental crowd that yells "recycle, recycle" but is very anti-biosolids. It seems that the sanitized Milorganite-type products get painted with the same brush as tanks of sewage sludge being dumped.

[MorpheusPA]

Gremble. One could wish the more-radical environmentalists would weigh comparative costs--getting rid of the stuff, or processing and packing into (perfectly safe grade A) fertilizer.

[rcnaylor]

The area this thread has moved in to reminds me of a tv show I saw a while back on the deep ocean floor.

Away from the main ocean currents and in the deep ocean, it resembles a vast desert. A desert where there simply isn't any nutrients to support much life. So, every scrap of nutrient mass material is devoured and re-devoured.

With 7 billion (and climbing all the time) people on the earth needing nutrients, it makes me wonder how much longer it will be before such "waste" nutrients as we are discussing here will become highly valuable commodities in our food chain?

[MorpheusPA]

That may happen, although population looks to level off mid-century and then start to slowly drop. We could, theoretically, paddle-mix nutrients into large areas of ocean using wind- or solar-driven machinery, turn it into a fish farm, and eat the fish. Expensive to do, but if you have widespread famine, perhaps worth it.

Sherri Tepper had a very interesting take on that in the novel Beauty, but since the planetary population eventually hit zero, perhaps it's not quite the road we wish to take. Note before you buy: it's mostly a fantasy novel, but Tepper always has a lot of things to say about society no matter what she writes. At the very least, Sleeping Beauty was left at the end, without a stated time of waking, waiting for the damage to undo itself well enough to bring everything back. Kind of a depressing novel, really.

[rcnaylor]

You know how that'd go Morph. We'd figure out after we got all that going that adding all that bio-diversity mid ocean warms the waters and plays heck with la nina cancelling out more food production than gaining. ha ha.

I'm becoming a fatalist. But, a rather mellow and complacent one so long as the grape growing regions hold out.

[MorpheusPA]

Geoengineering is fraught with issues, not least of which that we only have one planet incompletely studied thus far. it would be best to test these things on a world without life where any damage would simply be somewhat inconvenient, but that's not currently an option.

Grapes? Oh, well, they're now growing those in England again, after a two thousand year hiatus.

[formicburn]

When you recycle, where do you think most of it goes?? The LANDFILL. Many communities don't have the time and resources to actually recycle the products they receive. Most bags are contaminated with things not are not "recyclable". It's a sad, but true fact.

[rcnaylor]

Grapes? Oh, well, they're now growing those in England again, after a two thousand year hiatus.

Wow. Brits growing grapes. Wineries can't be far behind... so, are they going to call their produce limey wine?!

[rcnaylor]

When you recycle, where do you think most of it goes?? The LANDFILL. Many communities don't have the time and resources to actually recycle the products they receive. Most bags are contaminated with things not are not "recyclable". It's a sad, but true fact.

Yeah, we have some re-cycling bins set up as local store parking lots. My wife has noticed the same trash trucks that pick up our dumpsters (all unsorted) pick up those.

No money in the stuff that is separated, apparently. Kinda sad. I don't get why they even bother with the charade of separate cannisters.