David--In Paul's defense, I suspect that he thought the username paulinct probably indicated that he was Paul in CT.

Paul--to make the info "stick" you need to add it to your profile. There's a spot for state, but I don't think that shows up anywhere anymore except for your profile page. What many of us do is use the zone to put more info than just zone (like zone + state or zone + city).

Zone by itself is not all that useful since it only tells how cold it gets in the winter. I'm really in zone 6, because it doesn't get all that cold in the winter, but the growing season here is shorter than most zone 5 areas, so I list myself as zone 5 in Utah.

Thank you Bpgreen, I will try that. And you're right of course, that was why I picked that user name, though admittedly the CT that borders the Berkshires, the CT that is on the way to Boston, and the CT that is on the east (or west) end of LI Sound are all very different places. With the hills to the north, the Sound to the south, and at least three significant river valleys, we have at least four zones here in tiny CT, with many variations in each and much overlap I'm sure.

Dchall, I'd like to respond to your whole post thoughtfully but don't think I can in one post and still keep it readable. Let me start with your first few ideas and I promise to return to the others.

For now let's take your basic theory: "My first consideration is whether what I'm planning to use is either alive now or was once alive and is now a mix of protein, carbohydrate, vitamins, and minerals."

My first question is whether you object to using synthesized urea, even though it has the same atomic structure as naturally occurring Urea. If so could you explain why?

I am also curious about how far back into the past you look when considering whether a given soil additive was once alive. I mean, the hydrocarbons we use to create electricity and power our cars were once integral parts of living organisms that live maybe 100 million years ago or even earlier. In that sense gassing up the car is the first step in "organic driving." Is there a cutoff date for what was "once alive?"

I know it may seem like it, but I am not playing "gotcha" here. There is just no easy way to ask these questions other than directly. But I think they are important questions, or at least they are to me.

Of course, if my questions suggest that I misunderstood your basic outlook please just let me know where I missed the point!

Best,
Paul

It seems to me you're just asking questions to learn more, as opposed to tricking anyone.

Naturally occurring urea is most commonly found in urine but I suppose it could be made from uric acid (bird waste). Being only an ingredient in urine, purifying it in bulk is pretty much out of the economic question. Usually urine is used directly without further purification. My only objection to a purified urea is that it is not much of a food source for microbes. There is no protein, carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals, or enzymes. Natural urine may not have much of that either. I have never bought urea on purpose, at least not since I stopped using chemicals. I might have used it in the synthetic fertilizers I once used.

Organic gardening is about feeding real food to the microbes in the soil - at least in my world. Urea is not on my list of foods. Some things that are alive and go into the soil include bacteria (from sources like compost, milk, and urine), fungi (from sources like compost), and nematodes. Some bacteria, fungi, and nematodes are grown and harvested for the purpose of being a soil additive. Materials that were recently alive include ground up grains, blood meal, feather meal, seaweed meal, fish hydrolysate, etc. These are great sources of protein, carbs, etc. These are real food for the microbes.

Why does organic gardening work? Because once the soil microbes become healthy, they do all the work for you, just as Nature has been doing for billions of years. The microbes just need food. Before we came along to tame the wild, animals died on the ground. When they did, after the visible scavengers had their fill, the microbes finished the decomposition. Meat, blood, bones, hair, and feathers were the foodstuff for literally billions of years. The other source was plants trampled to the ground. But since we came along to build homes, we hardly ever allow the dead carcasses of wild animals to fertilize our property. For a loooooong time we improvised by using compost and manure. In my opinion compost and manure are not fertilizers in the sense that they provide very little protein. Since the turn of this century we are getting a little more sophisticated by using grains at the surface to simulate the dead animal proteins that used to end up on the surface. Any ground up bean, nut, or seed makes good fertilizer. Many ground up grasses and legumes also make good fertilizers because they have protein in their stems or flowers. Alfalfa is a perfect example of that. I would like to see someone come up with a way to pelletize kudzu like alfalfa is pelletized. We could feed the world with the kudzu in Alabama.

Does that help, Paul?

I have seen some articles indicating in a luke warm way that Milky Spore *may* be effective against certain other species, under certain circumstances. Is that your understanding?

There's a few minor indications, but I sure wouldn't count on it.

Tagging onto Dchall's posts above (which are wonderful!), a naturally healthy soil and lawn won't mind a few June bugs, and you should naturally have the predators to keep the numbers down.

That can take a while, however, and using nematodes wouldn't hurt a bit.

I mean, the hydrocarbons we use to create electricity and power our cars were once integral parts of living organisms that live maybe 100 million years ago or even earlier. In that sense gassing up the car is the first step in "organic driving." Is there a cutoff date for what was "once alive?"

I love that question and it made me think a bit. My off-the-cuff definition would be that "organic" would include anything where the carbon isn't in semi-permanent storage and doesn't require more than very minimal processing to be made available to my lawn and gardens.

Grain is fine; left to itself, it'll rot and return its carbon to the atmosphere (eventually, most of it). Sewage sludge is fine. Again, (most of) the carbon will go back into the atmosphere and the processing isn't so extreme that I have an issue with it.

Strangely, I do consider peat moss a semi-organic alternative just because that carbon was in storage and looked to stay there for a very long time. We're interrupting the process of it slowly turning to coal, but not late enough that it's anywhere close yet.

Liquid humates, often derived from coal, are not organic in my book, but I have no objection to others using them. I just don't.

Honestly, if they could come up with kudzu pellets, I'd use 'em. Or, for a local alternative, bittersweet vine pellets...

You mentioned in the post you linked that you had sod webworm damage and fixed it with compost. How?

I only had 3 small areas that were partially damaged/chewed. I applied a thin layer of compost to the affected area by hand and lightly raked it in. About 2 months later the spots were completely filled in with new grass.

You say the good bugs keep the bad bugs in check. What bugs keep grubs in check?

Nematodes

Was yours a sod installation?

Yes, St.Augustine can only be grown from sprigs, plugs or sod.

Hey Dchall,

Urea was actually the first organic compound to be synthesized from non-organics, thereby disproving the theory of "vitalism" (which I had never heard of until I recently started looking into urea) and creating the entire discipline of organic chemistry. A big development!

Apparently it doesn't need to be "purified" from organic wastes, bur rather can be created at will. Wiki is usually a terrible source IMHO, but not so much for well settled ideas, like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%B6hler_synthesis

That is why I asked whether you would have any objection to using a synthesized form of a molecule that is seen as a great source of nitrogen when created naturally. I mean, it is the same molecule no matter how it was derived.

I can't help but notice that in your earlier post you said organics were "once alive" but in your more recent post you say that they were "recently alive." I would really like to understand this distinction.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my many questions, I realy appreciate it!

Paul

Morpheus, thanks for your thoughts! I would say that, having battled that vine for years I think the name "bittersweet" should be condensed to the first two syllables only.

I imagine you would agree...

;-)

Paul

Skoot cat,

Thank you for your clarification. I actually re-read your thread and realized that you stated up top that this was sod, I'm sorry I missed that.

Anyway, is it fair to conclude that you renovated your yard, brought in much topsoil and/or compost, installed new (presumably weed-, bug- and fungus-free and well fertilized sod), and after following accepted "organic" practices still ended up with some weeds, sod webworms, and a moderately serious fungal infection, all within months of the install?

Please don't take this the wrong way - your lawn pics look great! But are these the facts?

Of course, if I misunderstood or misinterpreted anything in that thread just let me know!

Thank again,
Paul

after following accepted "organic" practices still ended up with some weeds, sod webworms, and a moderately serious fungal infection, all within months of the install?

Yes and No. In a lot of my posts I refer to my front and back yard which have been installed/maintained differently. Let me explain.

My front yard (St.Augustine) was laid in the spring of this year, and yes it does have some weeds, but currently no bugs or fungus. After the first month it was laid I noticed a few areas of gray leaf spot. Im guessing this occurred because of the establishment/watering period. The spots are gone now and my grass looks healthy as ever with no chemicals.

Now, my back yard (St.Augustine) is another story. It has been established for 5 years now. The first 2 years it was down I used synthetics of all sorts. Fungicides, herbicides, you name it. I over watered, over fertilized, mowed to low etc, etc. (This was/is my first house and lawn). I would get serious sod webworm damage in late summer, then brown patch in the fall. It was a vicious cycle.

I then decide to switch to organics. The first year into organics I still got sod webworm damage and brown patch. The second year of organics I got less webworm damage, and I caught the brown patch early and stopped it from spreading with Corn Meal. Now the 3rd year into organics I've only had 3 areas (about the size of Frisbee) affect by webworm and No fungus or disease.

I still see the Adult Sod Webworms (moths) flying around areas of my front and back yard. My front yard has no signs of damage, and my back has only a few areas as stated above.

No matter how urea is made, it is a chemical. With the diversity of microbes in the soil, there are probably critters that can "eat" urea and produce protein out of it. I prefer real food. A urea diet for the soil would be like trying to sustain your health eating only pills. The current production method for urea is briefly mentioned in this wiki.

Once alive, recently alive. Potato potahto. Prehistoric slime is not on my list of valuable organic foods. I prefer recently ground grains including coffee, corn, alfalfa, soy bean, cottonseed, milo, or whatever else can be ground up to the point where it will not germinate after I apply it. The oldest stuff I will use is last year's composted animal manure. Even if my corn meal gets bugs in it, I consider that fresh organic material. I apply it, bugs and all. (My buddy's wife threw a bag of CGM away because of bugs!!!)

Cracked corn works well, but you have to expect a corn crop from the uncracked kernels. Fortunately they mow down easily.

What are you getting at? Do you still have concerns about something? Organic lawn care can cost more than synthetic if you use compost for anything. If you don't use compost (like I don't), it will cost you less and be much less hassle. If you do it with fresh grains at the rates we talk about all the time, you will have no smells at all. And if you use it at the rates we talk about, you will not smother anything. You can apply it any day of the year without fear of hurting anything. Your children can apply it by hand without fear of poisoning (avoid grains you might be allergic to). Weeds are an issue only if you are not watering and mowing properly. Grubs have an organic solution. Other insects seem to crawl back into hiding, or at least they are kept in check by the other critters which are allowed to live poison free. You will see a return of birds, lizards, and toads to your yard to help you keep the caterpillars, earwigs, sow bugs, assassin bugs, leaf footed bugs, etc. down to levels that do not bother you. Once you stop using fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, and non-food fertilizers, Nature will rebalance your yard for you. You don't have to do anything but feed and water the critters.

Skoot cat, that is very helpful, thank you! I can see from your post the progress you have made in an organic way and that is inspiring to me. I'm sorry for misunderstanding your other thread.

Dchall,

Thank you for your recent post.

But I'm not sure where to begin. You say "No matter how urea is made, it is a chemical. With the diversity of microbes in the soil, there are probably critters that can "eat" urea and produce protein out of it. I prefer real food. A urea diet for the soil would be like trying to sustain your health eating only pills."

Let's ignore the fact that urea is one of the best "foods" available for grass plants and start with the concept of "chemicals." I mean, if you are opposed to them, then you need to stop breathing in our atmosphere, which is full of them. And I am not talking about pollutants, but just "chemicals." Which are, of course what make up our atmosphere. What I am saying is that "chemicals" themselves are not evil, they are what make up the known universe. I suspect you are objecting to synthetically derived chemicals, but I am still not sure why.

Let's go from there to the idea that microbes need to eat urea in order to create protein. What? The whole concept of protein fertilization is that protein fertilizers are broken down to RELEASE nitrogen, not the other way around. So why anyone should be looking for microbes to break urea "down" into proteins I don't understand.

You also said: "What are you getting at? Do you still have concerns about something? Organic lawn care can cost more than synthetic if you use compost for anything. If you don't use compost (like I don't), it will cost you less and be much less hassle."

Well yes, my main concern is that organic lawn care may be the modern equivalent of snake oil. Like I have been saying all along, I "Want to Believe," but then every time I look into it I get discouraged, usually by the sheer lack of basic knowledge displayed by its proponents, but also because of the dishonesty that is so common in these discussions.

I mean, for example, just a few posts ago you told me you fixed a spot of webworm damage with compost. Now you say that you don't even use compost. What am I to make of that? (!)

Look, I really would try going all organic if there is a case to support it, but I have not found that yet. Best I have found is a case to support using synthetic pesticides in moderation, and that is something I can see the value of and will adopt. I can also see the value in encouraging soil microbe health by using protein fertilizers, so that is something I also plan to adopt. But if your last post is intended to encourage wholesale adoption of organic methods because they (1) work, and (2) make sense in the broader picture, well all I can say is that that is not what I got from it.

I'll leave it at that unless you'd like to discuss further.

I'm sorry we disagree, but do appreciate your engaging me here, so thank you!

Paul

I mean, for example, just a few posts ago you told me you fixed a spot of webworm damage with compost. Now you say that you don't even use compost. What am I to make of that?

To get the facts straight, I said that.

Here is a good/non scientific way to Break it down. IMO

Let's say you had 2 bowls:
The first one was filled with Corn Meal, Soybean meal and Milk.

The second one was filled with BrandX 10-10-10, BrandX Lawn Fungicide and Liquid Synthetic pesticides.

Which one would you eat?
Which one would you let your kids eat?
Which one would you let your family eat?

The approach to organic lawn care goes far beyond the health of your precious grass.

skoot cat, you appear to be equating plant nutrition with mammalian nutrition; I do not believe your analogy to be tenable.

"you appear to be equating plant nutrition with mammalian nutrition; I do not believe your analogy to be tenable."

Ron, I agree 100%. Let's skip the inaccurate, overly simplistic analogies and focus on scientific explanations.

There are many legitimate organic lawn products that I don't care to eat. The manures, blood and bone meals, and fish emulsions top my list...potential E. coli bacteria, blood born illnesses, and just plain yuck! However, it's been proven that the application of manures, blood & bone meals, and fish byproducts improve soil health.

BTW, I don't care to eat feed grains either. There is no limit on rodent hairs and rodent droppings, and loose limits on pesticide residues...no thanks!!!

I only eat FDA approved foods for human consumption...even with that I'm still taking a chance. 8^)

-Deerslayer

I only eat FDA approved foods for human consumption...even with that I'm still taking a chance. 8^)

You are absolutely safe in applying FDA approved foods for human consumption to feed your soil microbes. When you get tired of paying for the FDA approval, you might try shopping at the feed store for similar materials which do not carry the expense that the FDA saddles on the farmers and food processors. I'm not saying the FDA is causing problems, just that there is a cost associated with the processing care they require. At the same time, the microbes probably do not care about the FDA requirements. And even though there are legitimate organic materials around like manure, blood, bone, and fish meal, I don't use any of them because I don't have to. If you stick with ordinary corn meal you'll be thrilled with the results.

Regarding equating plant nutrition with mammalian nutrition: if you've spent any time on this or the other organic forum, you should realize that plant health is a byproduct of healthy soil microbes. When you feed real food to the soil microbes, they take care of the plants.

paulinct: Clearly none of this is getting through. If you don't have a case to support it from October 19th, then I'm going to suggest there might be a blind spot. I listed 15 things that healthy soil microbes can do that chemicals cannot do. All the chemicals can do is provide three of the 15 or so essential nutrients that plants apparently need. Not only that but several lawn chemicals are specifically designed to kill species of microbes. I maintain that Mother Nature needs all the species active in the soil to maintain normal health. When one species disappears, something else happens to fill the void until the species can return, and it may not be completely good (by our standards). I suggest that you try an organic plan in a small spot in your yard. Pick a realistic test and not a spot in deep, dark, shade. Apply corn GLUTEN meal at a rate of 1.5 pounds per 100 square feet on April 1, 2008. You can tell your friends it's an April Fool's joke, because you WILL be covered in yellow dust. Water it down once and leave it alone. Then on April 30, write back and let us know what it looks like. Then write back again on May 30. You also said...Let's ignore the fact that urea is one of the best "foods" available for grass plants.... We never talk about food for grass plants on this forum. We talk about food for microbes. These are creatures from the animal kingdom, not plants. The link between how the microbes convert mammalian food to plant food is a black hole. We used to say, freakin' magic, or words to that effect, when we did not understand the science behind the observation. I suspect you are thinking the same thing. You can look at the results in the various pictures posted in this forum and see that at the very least we are not killing our lawns. And I, for one, am not cheating and using chemical fertilizers. The one sacrifice I made to organic program was not using weed-b-gone anymore. Now I hand pick oxalis to get rid of it. Fortunately it stays picked for a full season if you do a good job picking it. And if you do a really good job of catching it before it flowers, you can eradicate it completely. My front lawn has had bouts of oxalis, nutgrass, bermuda, and "wild onion" (which is really a wildflower related to that entire family of plants). The only one I purposely picked was the oxalis. The rest are gone. All I do is apply corn meal and occasionally something else like corn gluten meal, alfalfa pellets, or dog food. If you are waiting for six university studies to agree on a program, we'll see you back here in 20 years. It took more like 60 years to "discover" that cigarettes killed, and that was rather obvious compared to the confusion found in the history of organic gardening. If you can stick with grains and stay away from animal tissue, you'll have a good experience. I consider the use of animal parts to be very advanced organic gardening. I've been doing this for six years and animal parts scare me.

okay,

I should have said. Which would you want to walk barefoot or roll around in. Which most people/kids do. (on the lawn)

All I am trying to say is that if you choose chemicals to fertilize with, they will make there way into you and your family. They can be absorbed through your skin very easily. That is a fact.

"They can be absorbed through your skin very easily. That is a fact."

True but most "chemical" fertilizers these days are urea based. Your body creates urea so it is in intimate contact with urea already...and I do mean intimate. 8^)

The pesticide residues on feed grains may be more toxic. Also, there is the issue of aflatoxins and corn.

"High-level aflatoxin exposure produces an acute necrosis, cirrhosis, and carcinoma of the liver exhibited by hemorrhage, acute liver damage, edema, alteration in digestion, and absorption and/or metabolism of nutrients."

I use organic fertilizers because there are many good reasons to do so. However, I think it is counterproductive to demonize other approaches to lawn care.

"At the same time, the microbes probably do not care about the FDA requirements."

I agree. That's one of the reasons why I believe that you shouldn't equate human diets to soil diets or plant diets.

-Deerslayer

I believe that you shouldn't equate human diets to soil diets or plant diets.

Could you follow up on this? Are you saying there is something better than the stuff we call food for microbes? I don't think anyone is saying the human MDR should be the same as the microbe MDR. All I'm saying is that human food is also microbe food. Now that I think about it, human food is also food for just about every other species on earth. Maybe those tube worms living in the hot water vents under the ocean eat something else. But by and large, food is food. If it has protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes; something will eat it.

I believe that you shouldn't equate human diets to soil diets or plant diets. (my statement)

Could you follow up on this?

Now that I think about it, human food is also food for just about every other species on earth.

There are many foods that people eat that are not/should not be eaten by other species. Some animals that quickly come to mind are: Pandas (only eat bamboo); whales (only eat krill, small fish, and plankton); dogs (chocolate can be lethal).

However, my post was directed at the reverse. There are many organic plant foods that I do not care to eat. I gave manures, blood and bone meals, and fish emulsions as examples. I also pointed out that it isn't wise for humans to eat anything that is not intended for human consumption including feed grains. While the purity of feed grains may be acceptable for animals, it is not acceptable for humans. For example, aflatoxin levels can be 15 times higher for corn used as cattle feed than for corn intended for human consumption.

FDA Approved Aflatoxin Levels

All I'm saying is that human food is also microbe food.

I agree. Basically, you're saying that bacteria, fungus and mold can decompose human foods. In addition, microbes can decompose other organic materials including urea.

-Deerslayer

So what you're saying has nothing to do with organic gardening as we discuss it. You just want us to know that you don't want to eat blood, bone, or manure unless it at levels approved by the FDA. And you don't want to eat the feed quality grains in normal organic fertilizers. I can understand that. I understood that the first time you said it.

Aflatoxin is less of a health concern for Americans than cholera. Sure it could happen, but normal handling procedures in the agricultural industry keeps us from getting it. You said, "High-level aflatoxin exposure produces an acute necrosis, cirrhosis, and carcinoma of the liver exhibited by hemorrhage, acute liver damage, edema, alteration in digestion, and absorption and/or metabolism of nutrients." "High levels" do not occur in food. The situation they are talking about in your quote is when aflatoxin is "weaponized" and delivered to humans as an inhalant as was done by the Soviets in Cambodia in the 1970s. This is not to say that low levels over a long period of time is harmless, but aflatoxin is simply not a problem in organic gardening. When was the last newspaper article you read about aflatoxin?

DCHall, if you carefully read what I initially wrote you'll see that I simply agreed with ronalawn's post. Here is ronalawn's post again.

"you appear to be equating plant nutrition with mammalian nutrition; I do not believe your analogy to be tenable."(ronalawn)

After that you asked me to expand my statements so I did. I think I've already given enough examples to support my position.

"So what you're saying has nothing to do with organic gardening as we discuss it."

My point is that the way you and others discuss organic gardening is often inaccurate and overly simplistic.

Technically, bacteria don't eat. They are single celled organisms that don't have mouths, stomachs, or intestines. They absorb nutrients through their cell walls by osmosis.

"The situation they are talking about in your quote is when aflatoxin is "weaponized" and delivered to humans as an inhalant as was done by the Soviets in Cambodia in the 1970s."

Where did you find that? Are you confusing aflatoxin with anthrax?

If you do some research you'll find that aflatoxin is a known carcinogen that grows on rotting corn. This isn't new information, it's been known for decades. Google "aflatoxin" and you'll find plenty of warnings and documented deaths. Here's a quote from Cornell University.

"Safety is a key issue for scientists working in the aflatoxin area. Steps must be taken to minimize exposure to the toxins as well as to the producing microorganisms, Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. A safety program should be established that meets the requirements of the Laboratory Standard of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1990) and the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health (1981) covering use of chemical carcinogens."

People who are concerned about the safety of their environment should be aware of aflatoxins before encouraging the growth of aspergillus flavus and aspergillus parasiticus (aka microbes) by applying corn to their lawns. After all, who wants to promote the growth of known carcinogens in their yard?

-Deerslayer

After that you asked me to expand my statements so I did. I think I've already given enough examples to support my position.

And since it had nothing to do with soil microbe nutrition, I guess I was correct.

My point is that the way you and others discuss organic gardening is often inaccurate and overly simplistic.

It is just that simple. You put grain on the ground and in about 3 weeks, the grass turns very dark green. Furthermore, insect populations seem to normalize so you don't end up with infestations of anything. When you stop using chemical -icides, you see the return of birds, lizards, and toads. I say a lot of things which elaborate on these basics. What are the inaccuracies you're talking about? As we have discussed before, I am willing to become more accurate when inaccuracies are demonstrated.

Where did you find that? Are you confusing aflatoxin with anthrax? If you do some research you'll find that aflatoxin is a known carcinogen that grows on rotting corn. This isn't new information, it's been known for decades.

It's been known for more decades than you know about. I can't tell you where I first found it or else I'd have to kill you. I can tell you that the weapon grade aflatoxin is not something you start from scratch and develop in a decade or two. I can also tell you that in 1981 I worked with a young lady who was a relative expert on aflatoxin. You could not go very long before the topic came up (not quite insufferable, but sometimes it seemed like it). And of course now the weapons use information is available on the Internet. I have given enough info for you to do the Googling. And if you read the CDC reports, you'll see that reports of mass sickness or death from aflatoxin are pretty much zero in the developed countries. One reason is that micotoxins you grow yourself are strong enough to make you very sick IF you eat it. For example, if you make bread out of infected corn you can get sick and may even die, but don't ask me how I know that, either. It should be obvious from even cursory reading that eating concentrated aflatoxin is a bad idea.

Safety is a key issue for scientists working in the aflatoxin area.

Farmers, on the other hand, still work without any special safety precautions. The conditions for growing aflatoxin are reasonably strict. I question whether it could even be grown on a lawn. If the Aspergillus got a start, would it last long enough to go toxic before getting eaten by something else? Part of the beauty of organic gardening is the abundance of healthy microbes usually defeats disease.

"And since it had nothing to do with soil microbe nutrition, I guess I was correct."

The examples supported ronalawn's initial assertion that human nutrition shouldn't be equated to the nutritional needs of other species including plants. However, I agreed with you that soil microbes can decompose many materials including human food and other organic materials such as urea.

What are the inaccuracies you're talking about?"

I pointed one out earlier. Soil microbes don't "eat" feed grains. Often you personify microscopic life. In fairness, you are not the only one that does this.

Questions like "What would you rather eat, a bowl of cornmeal or a bowl ???" aren't particularly helpful either. BTW, I think this thread proves that a bowl of cornmeal (cattle quality) may not be as safe as some people think.

Regarding the use of aflatoxin as a weapon. It was allegedly used in Cambodia and other countries but its use was not confirmed upon later investigation. Here's a U.S. Department of State link:

Yellow Rain

Saddam Hussein reportedly made biological weapons, some with aflatoxin, but everybody knows that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. 8^)

Here's a link that states that aflatoxins have relatively little value for military use because there are better alternatives. I suspect that anthrax is one of them.

Weapons

Also, note that the site states that aflatoxin based weapons are relatively easy to make. It appears that producing "weapons grade" aflatoxin may be easier than you think.

I don't want to spend any more time on aflatoxin as a weapon. I just wanted to point out that you don't have your facts entirely straight. Besides, my point is that aflatoxins are dangerous. The fact that they may be used as weapons confirms this.

"And if you read the CDC reports, you'll see that reports of mass sickness or death from aflatoxin are pretty much zero in the developed countries."

The reason that the deaths occur in third world countries is because their food supplies are not as regulated as the food supplies in developed countries. The U.S. has some of the safest food in the world. Clearly, there is little risk of eating contaminated food of any kind in the U.S.. However, corn used as a feed grain can have 15 times the level of aflatoxins than is permitted by the FDA in food.

Keep in mind that there is Aflatoxicosis which can lead to a relatively quick death but requires high level exposure and liver cancer which can take years (decades?) to develop from low level aflatoxin exposure.

"Farmers, on the other hand, still work without any special safety precautions."

Here's a quote from the "Weapons" link above:

"an attack in a city would be difficult to diagnose but would be more likely to be observed in agricultural areas where it is a known occupational disease of grain farmers."

Since aflatoxin caused illnesses are a "known occupational disease", I think it would be prudent for farmers to take some safety precautions...for example, wearing respirators when handling corn.

Encouraging the growth of cancer producing microbes in my lawn just doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how long they are viable or that certain conditions must be present for the microbes to thrive. There is nothing compelling me to apply corn to my lawn. There are other organic fertilizers that are safer. In any case, people should be aware of the risks. They can then make an informed decision.

-Deerslayer

I pointed one [inaccuracy] out earlier. Soil microbes don't "eat" feed grains. Often you personify microscopic life. In fairness, you are not the only one that does this.

I'll work to reword future statements. "Eat" is a term that most organic novices can relate to. "Decompose," although more technically accurate, tends to obscure the idea with extra syllables ;-)

Weapons grade aflatoxins are easier to make now. My comment was in reference to their use in the late 1970s. A lot of history may never be published in this country on that. And I am content in the accuracy of my original comments. I wish I could say more. The state department has reasons why they make their statements. They are very carefully worded.

There are other organic fertilizers that are safer. In any case, people should be aware of the risks. They can then make an informed decision.

This is a good way of saying it. Obviously I think the risk is so low as to be not worth mentioning; however, I cannot find anywhere a risk associated with handling aflatoxin or corn. How many tons of corn are produced or condemned by aflatoxin? How many farmers are diagnosed each year with aflatoxicosis? How many mill workers are diagnosed and what precautions do they take? I am working in a part of Texas where corn is milled. I'll stop in and ask those guys what they do about it. Hopefully they can shed some light. I won't get to that for a couple days (at least), so if you have questions you'd like me to ask, please let me know.

Well, I don't have a dog in this fight...

But I did a google search for the term and what I found in fairly interesting.

This stuff is produced by a fungus that is commonly found in topsoil.

The same article notes that "corn becomes vulnerable to the toxin in high temperatures because cracked kernels allow mold to thrive."

Apparently this stuff is also very difficult to eradicate.

>>
According to Hurburgh, a treatment of anhydrous ammonia is the only commercially available method of fungus containment and perhaps aflatoxin eradication, but whether its approved by the FDA or not is another matter.
full story is here.

I think Deerhunter has a valid point then questioning why you would want to put corn in your yard knowing that you might be putting materials into your lawn that could feed a harmful fungus (one you might not be able to eradicate)

I think I'll be looking elsewhere for my own organic lawncare materials.

DCHall, I wasn't able to find anything on aflatoxin workplace safety for Texas but I did find the following fact sheet for New Jersey.

Workplace Safety

It will be interesting to hear what the mill workers in Texas have to say. I believe that OSHA requires worker disclosure of hazardous materials. It also requires workplace safety procedures and training for handling any hazardous materials present in the workplace.

-Deerslayer

WHAT REALLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU USE CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS

- Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers increase the amounts of toxic nitrates in dietary intake. According to the National Research Council, 6 of the top 7 and 9 of the top 15, foods with oncogenic (cancer causing) risk are produce items with high nitrate content from pesticides or nitrogen fertilizers. A 12 year study comparing organically grown versus chemically grown showed that chemically grown foods had 16 times more nitrate (a carcinogen).

- Four metals that are considered harmful to humans; aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury are lower in foods grown organically as compared to those with synthetic chemicals. Doctor's Data Analytical Laboratories.

- Chemicals not absorbed by the grass can leach into ground-water and pollute the water supply. In time local ponds, streams, and lakes become polluted. 2) salts accumulate in the soil and can "lock up" water and other nutrients making them unavailable to grass, salt buildup also reduces the soils ability to absorb water and air 3) fast release chemicals needlessly stress the grass making it more susceptible to insects, disease and injury. 4) slow-release fertilizers are coated with other materials that can further pollute the soil and environment 5) thatch greatly increase with the use of synthetic fertilizers since the soil becomes too acidic for earthworms and microorganisms (if the salts have not killed them first) hence they are not available to break down the thatch back into beneficial organic compounds. 6) Chemical burning and browning often occurs if synthetic fertilizers are over applied to grass. 7) destruction of earthworms and microorganisms leads to a reduced root zone in the soil which means more watering required and additional fertilization required to keep plants green which starts the cycle all over again.

- Excess synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) has been found to reduce insect and disease resistance of plants. Soil Scientist, USDA

- Synthetic fertilizers use strong chemical salts used to carry nutrients that create a thatch buildup by killing both microorganisms and earthworms in the soil that eat and breakdown thatch. A thick layer of thatch (high lignin content) creates a fertile breeding ground for diseases and destructive insects (cinch bugs, webworms, fleas, fire ants, etc.) unlike mulch.

- As a rule only 30% of the nitrogen (up to 50% for anhydrous forms depending on soil types) and 10-11% of the phosphate applied as a fertilizer is actually used by plants in a best case environment.

- Excess salts used in synthetic fertilizers cause 2 problems. First, they reduce the moisture holding ability of soils and cause what moisture is present to be bound more tightly to the soil making it harder for plants to absorb. Second, also salt exposure reduces a plants roots ability to absorb water even if the soil is fully saturated. Since most commercial fertilizers are composed of soluble salts (ammonium nitrate, potassium chloride, etc.) and as these salt build up in the soil more water (irrigation) is required, the plants are weaker and more susceptible to insects and disease hence require more pesticides, fungicides, etc.

- Synthetic artificial fertilizers:

NaNO3 - "sodium nitrate or nitrate of soda", contains 16% Nitrogen, very soluble hence leaches easily and pollutes (not good for conifers or hardwoods). Kills beneficial microbes, earthworms and other soil life required for healthy soil. Increases disease problems.

NH3NO3 (NH4NO3) - Ammonium nitrate, 33.5% nitrogen (50% in nitrate form & 50% in Ammonium form), highly soluble hence leaches and pollutes. Also flammable and can explode if stored in a closed warehouse. Also absorbs water. Commonly used in nurseries, may also be used as a top dressing. Kills beneficial microbes, earthworms and other soil life required for healthy soil.

(NH4)2SO4 - "ammonium sulfate", source of N and S, does not acidify soil, may be used as a top dressing. Kills beneficial microbes, earthworms and other soil life required for healthy soil and also increases disease problems.

CO(NH2)2 - "urea", nitrogen loss by volatilization can be a problem, dissolves rapidly and suffers leaching losses. Kills beneficial microbes, earthworms and other soil life required for healthy soil and also increases disease problems.

KNO3 - "potassium Nitrate or nitrate of potash", 13% nitrogen (not good for trees as a N source, may be okay for K).

CaNo3 - Calcium nitrate, 15% nitrogen

Anhydrous Ammonia - 82% nitrogen, a particularly lethal form of nitrogen, combines with soil moisture to form colloids that stay in soil, when applied to soils low in humus over 2/3 (67%) can be lost to the atmosphere. Kills beneficial microbes, earthworms and other soil life required for healthy soil and also increases disease problems.

- Most (all) synthetic fertilizers use "fillers" to help carry the nutrients. These fillers are not listed on the label. These can be chemical salts, sand, lime, dolomite, or even (as it was recently discovered) contaminated wastes containing dangerous heavy metals and hazardous wastes. These fillers can often cause problems. For example, if your soil has high magnesium relative to calcium, then using a fertilizer with a dolomitic lime filler will make the soil imbalance worse, resulting in more weeds.

- Synthetic fertilizers kill the soil microbes that are so essential for healthy soil and healthy plants.

The residues from these fertilizers can adversely affect the soil biology for years.

- Many synthetic fertilizers are dangerous to keep around as they can create a condition where spontaneous combustion can occur. They also can be used as a essential ingredient in making explosives (i.e. Oklahoma City Bombing).

- New studies have shown that nitrate from synthetic fertilizers stimulate the germination of weed seeds. In tests of 85 species of weeds it was found that nitrate could replace light requirements for germination, and increase germination under adverse temperatures. Other studies have shown that nitrate increases weed germination rates 11 times higher (3% to 34%). Acres USA February 1997, Harold Willis, Ph.D.

Skoot Cat, most of your information relates to synthetic fertilizers that are not used by homeowners. Most homeowner's use synthetic fertilizers that are Urea based.

One of the "synthetic" fertilizers that you mentioned, Sodium Nitrate NaNO3, is used in organic farming and is an ingredient in Ringer's Lawn Restore which is considered organic. Sodium Nitrate is also called Chilean Nitrate. Here's a link:

Sodium Nitrate

If you have any credible sources that indicate that Urea kills soil microbes and earthworms, please post them.

-Deerslayer

Deerslayer,

Again you still have no clue. I told you in the past be quite and take classes from Dr Elaine Ingham. You'd actually learn something from her. you're just pulling bad info out just because you don't like being proved wrong.

And yes urea has negative impact on the soil biology. The more you use, the worse it gets!

"And yes urea has negative impact on the soil biology. The more you use, the worse it gets!"

Finally, you've written something where we can agree!

When used exclusively, urea can deplete OM which adversely affects soil biology and reduces the activity of some soil microbes. However, I haven't seen any studies that indicate that urea kills soil microbes or earthworms. I'm not saying that urea doesn't. I'm simply saying that I am interested in reading a study that addresses the issue.

One of the problems that golf course grounds managers face is excessive worm castings on greens and tees. There have been numerous studies done on ways to reduce earthworm populations and the resulting castings. Many golf courses use urea based fertilizers and they still have the problem of excessive worm castings.

Lou, if you are an ardent follower of Dr. Ingham, why don't you participate in the controversial discussions and advance her ideas? I enjoy reading multiple viewpoints. I bet other forum readers do as well.

Frankly, I learn more in discussions like these than those that simply "preach to the choir".

-Deerslayer

I have followed this thread for a while and I agree this is not a 'preach to the chior' discussion.
One 'strawman' arguement that was brought up however, is that human/mammalian food is not necessarily good as microbial food.
Mammalian or reptilian or petro/gasoline, it all breaks down by microbial action.
The only real question here is: which product suits grass better than hasta?
Why does this product work better for roses?
etc., etc.
IMO if we stick to practical application it is easier to follow and less likely to stray beyond usefullness.
But don't mind me I just enjoy reading the thread :)

Here's a link to a USDA summary of earthworm studies titled "Agricultural Management Effects on Earthworm Populations".

USDA Paper

Below is a quote from the summary section.

Generally, fertilizers increase
earthworm numbers by increasing crop
residues, especially when pH is maintained
near neutral. Herbicides are generally
harmless to earthworms. However, some
insecticides, nematicides, fungicides are
very toxic to earthworms.

Sulfur-coated urea is addressed in the main body of the paper. Earthworm populations have been shown to decrease after "extremely long exposure" to ammonium sulfate. The paper indicates that the decrease is probably the result of a change in soil pH.

I'm thinking that it's the sulfur in sulfur-coated urea that shifts the pH. I've noticed that some MSDSs indicate to lime when using sulfur-coated urea for an extended period of time. The pH shift may be the reason why polymer-coated urea is gaining in popularity.

-Deerslayer

One of the problems that golf course grounds managers face is excessive worm castings on greens and tees. There have been numerous studies done on ways to reduce earthworm populations and the resulting castings. Many golf courses use urea based fertilizers and they still have the problem of excessive worm castings.

woodycrest, one of our resident readers/writers, is a golf course greens keeper in Canada. He reports that his worm casting problems went away with an organic approach. So it doesn't surprise me that greenskeepers using urea might still have a problem.

One 'strawman' arguement that was brought up however, is that human/mammalian food is not necessarily good as microbial food.

So, suggest something better. If anyone has something better to feed the microbes, I'm ready to read about it. Regarding which one(s) work better on which plants: I don't know that anything is even close to being worked on in the universities (not that they check with me). I suspect that's why the commercial bags of fertilizer have a mixture of feedstuffs. I think it's safe to say that a mix of grains seems to work and covers the bases. I also think it's safe to say there are not (m)any affordable alternatives to people food or animal feed to feed the microbes.

"one of our resident readers/writers, is a golf course greens keeper in Canada. He reports that his worm casting problems went away with an organic approach."

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that an organic approach reduces earthworm populations? Here is a quote from the link titled "Earthworms".

"Earthworms cast on the surface for two primary reasons. First, after they ingest organic matter, decaying leaf tissue and mineral soil, they must excrete the leftover material. Second, earthworms live in relatively permanent burrows. When soil fills the burrows (often after heavy rains), earthworms ingest the soil and move it up to the surface to perform "house cleaning." Researchers working with earthworms have estimated that they may bring 20 to 25 tons of soil per acre to the surface each year."

Earthworms

My point was that the use of urea doesn't appear to harm earthworm populations. Otherwise, golf courses that fertilize with urea wouldn't have a problem with castings.

-Deerslayer

Dchall wrote:
woodycrest, one of our resident readers/writers, is a golf course greens keeper in Canada. He reports that his worm casting problems went away with an organic approach. So it doesn't surprise me that greenskeepers using urea might still have a problem.

Deerslayer wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that an organic approach reduces earthworm populations?

I have to agree. That is what it seemed like David's post is implying. Either that or the organic approach is constipating the worms' digestive system.

i have been staying out of this discussion because its the same old argument of synthetic vs organic. This is an organic forum so, it seems to me the discussions should not be a constant comparison.

anyhoo,since my name came up i figured i should throw in a comment or two.

worm castings were very problematic for a while, but i found that the worms were more prevalent in the areas of the greens where the soil needed improving the worms were all over these areas. As the soil improved the worms moved to other areas of 'bad' soil. The worm populations werent necessarily 'reduced', they either moved to other areas or moved deeper into the soil, i am not certain. THere are still worm castings here and there, but they are not a problem anymore. Keep in mind these changes didnt happen overnight, it took a season or two before i saw a signifcant reduction the amounts of casting mounds.
of course i have no scientific or university studies to back me up, only simple basic observation over six years.

"i have been staying out of this discussion because its the same old argument of synthetic vs organic. This is an organic forum so, it seems to me the discussions should not be a constant comparison."

I view this discussion as myth versus reality or cause and effect.

"As the soil improved the worms moved to other areas of 'bad' soil."

There is universal agreement in the literature that increased soil health increases earthworm populations which increases earthworm castings. I haven't read anything that suggests that earthworms prefer "bad" soil. It's not consistent with my personal experience either. I've always found that rich soil supports large populations of earthworms. Poor soil doesn't.

-Deerslayer

I never thought we would be commenting on worm psychology in this thread but hey, with all the rest, why not.

As I recall our discussion from way back when, woodycrest suggested that when the soil health was restored, the worms were able to create deeper holes. Deeper holes somehow allowed them to remain underground and not have to surface and form mounds. And I think "castings" is probably not the proper term for the mounds, but we all know what we're talking about.

For some history, I guess it was six years ago that woodycrest read something I wrote about using pet food for a fertilizer that caught his attention. He had recently taken over greenskeeping on a couple dilapidated par 3 golf courses in Canada just north of Lake Erie. As he described it then, landing a ball on the green from the tee was like landing on asphalt. The result was a 40-foot bounce. The soil was rock solid and dandelions were everywhere. Now after an initial application of cracked corn to some of the greens, and resetting the mowers to a proper mowing height, the courses are turned around. He has a mix of Dutch white clover and bentgrass throughout with no expenses for -icides or fertilizers. Oh, and he was "directed" by the course owner to spray something to kill the worms. As I recall he refused, and the worm hills on the greens have disappeared. Maybe they were scared away.

"I think "castings" is probably not the proper term for the mounds, but we all know what we're talking about."

Technically, the mounds are a combination of castings (aka casts) mixed with some organic material (often grass clippings). Most people refer to the mounds simply as earthworm castings or casts.

"the worms were able to create deeper holes. Deeper holes somehow allowed them to remain underground and not have to surface and form mounds."

Vertical boring earthworms deposit fecal matter on the soil surface regardless of the depth of their holes. With adequate food, and soil at the proper moisture level and temperature, vertical borers will stay within a half foot or so of the soil surface. If it's too hot or dry, they'll burrow deeper until they find favorable conditions. This can be 3 to 10 feet. If favorable conditions are not found, the earthworms will go to the bottom of their burrows, secrete a mucous to keep their bodies moist, and then go into a hibernation like state. The earthworms die at the bottom of their burrows if favorable conditions do not return in time.

-Deerslayer

i am not a worm, so i dont know how they live and to be honest i dont really care. i simply posted my observations. there were always more worms in the areas of poor soil. Hmmm...maybe canadian worms dont know about the 'universal agreement'.

Woodycrest and DCHall, believing that earthworms prefer bad soil and/or organic methods reduce earthworm populations and resulting castings is your prerogative. Keep in mind that you may be the only two organic gardeners in the world with those beliefs.

-Deerslayer

deerslayer,

belief??? no. i stated clearly that these were observations.

Woodycrest, you observed that the number of castings decreased in one area and increased in another. You believe that this occurred because the earthworms prefer "bad" soil.

-Deerslayer

i never used the words 'prefer' or 'believe'. i clearly stated that i was 'not certain'.

u r putting words in my mouth... oops, i mean keyboard.

Okay, here's a direct quote:

"As the soil improved the worms moved to other areas of 'bad' soil. The worm populations werent necessarily 'reduced', they either moved to other areas or moved deeper into the soil, i am not certain."

I interpret that statement as meaning that the earthworms moved either horizontally or vertically to "bad" soil and you are not certain of the direction. If my interpretation is correct, doesn't it mean that earthworms prefer "bad" soil?

Let's stop nitpicking.

-Deerslayer

ah, so that was your interpretation. will you admit that i never used those words?

lets stop trying to discredit every statement or hypothesis posted by anyone other than you. Clearly you are expert at interpretation.

Back to the original post. i don't think the term 'trade-off' should be applied to organic vs synthetic. these are two different approaches to achieve the same result.

They are different. an apple is not an orange.

I am tired of the same old argument over and over and over ad nauseum. THese organic lawn forums always seem to lead back to the same useless comparisons over and over and over.........it bores me to death!

An organic forum should discuss organic practices and how they benefit the lawn.

"will you admit that i never used those words?"

Sure, you didn't say "prefer" or "believe". Those were my interpretations which I believe were accurate.

"lets stop trying to discredit every statement or hypothesis posted by anyone other than you."

Heck, I often agree with others but only when I think they're right! There are many inaccurate statements made in this forum. I engage when I see a statement that goes off the charts. Here are some examples: "Milorganite is fired like china and couldn't possibly have any organic value", "urea sterilizes your soil", "earthworms prefer "bad" soil".

-Deerslayer

just because a statement is on the far left or the far right does not necessarily make it inaccurate.
There are always exceptions to the 'rule'.

It fascinated me to see the behaviour of the worms, moreso over time. i described what i saw, nothing more. i did not draw a conclusion.

worms probably do 'prefer' good soil, it makes sense, but that is not what i observed.

"i described what i saw, nothing more. i did not draw a conclusion."

I'm offering this in the spirit of growth. You observed that the mounds decreased in one area and increased in another. No one can dispute that. You drew a conclusion when you stated that the earthworms moved from good soil to bad soil (my interpretation). The mounds could have increased and decreased for many reasons. You concluded that the reason was the quality of the soil (my interpretation).

PaulinCT, are you still there or we boring you to death?

-Deerslayer