Do Your Plants Know the Difference Between Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers?

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.


You guys are not environmentalists..... I am tho.

Then, there's the problems of overuse. Excessive doses of some nutrients is a direct cause of other nutrient deficiencies.

And there's the build-up of chemical Salts. Because these fertilizers are by definition SALTS. Everyone knows Salt is BAD for agriculture.

On top of all this is the terrible toll that fertilizer manufacturing takes on the environment and the people who live near the factories. They pollute; they're dangerous. Remember the Bhopal fertilizer plant explosion in India in 1984? The Toulouse fertilizer plant explosion in France in 2001? On our own shores, the worst accident involving fertilizer took place in 1947 in Texas, when 600 people were killed and 3,500 people were injured; it was part of the testimony presented in July 2005 before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which was studying national security risks:

www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2005_h/050713-poje.pdf

Let's look first at the ingredients in a balanced fertilizer: N-P-K.

N, Nitrogen, is the most common element in our atmosphere. It comes in different forms: Elemental N, NO3- (Nitrate), NO2 (Nitrite), NH4+ (ionized Ammonia), NH3+ (poisonous Ammonia gas) and others. Nitrogen is also an essential nutrient; all plants and animals need it to survive. It's essential to the Chlorophyll molecule.

Too much, or the wrong kind of N, will damage or kill these organisms.

N is especially toxic to fish and invertebrates. It's also toxic to humans; people who depend on rural, private wells for their water source have one of the higher rates of a condition called Methemoglobinemia, aka Blue Baby Syndrome, which damages blood cells and is traced to high Nitrates.

Articles in Science Magazine submitted by the International Nitrogen Initiative last May inspired 'Reactive Nitrogen: The Next Big Pollution Problem' on the Wired Science website. It describes a litany of problems and warns us, 'Nitrogen pollution could eventually render entire stretches of ocean dead, as is now the case in the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizer runoff has created a 5,800 square mile dead zone.' Here's the URL:

blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/reactive-nitrog.html

More data appears in an essay posted by a company in New Jersey, Alpha Water Systems, titled 'Nitrate Pollution of Groundwater'. You can read it online:

www.reopure.com/nitratinfo.html

None of this is new. It's just worse.

And that's just the N.

Unlike Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium are immobile in Soil.

Feldspars and Micas contain most of the Potassium in our Soil. K in fertilizers is almost always applied as Potassium Chloride from mines in Canada.

K dissolves in Water. P does not.

Instead, it binds to Soil particles and stays put until some nice microbe comes along and un-locks it. Clay Soils tend to keep the strongest grip on it; Sandy Soils are looser and let it drizzle through.

Phosphate and Potash fertilizers don't just raise the chemical P and K levels; they also add damaging Soil Salts. And although most Soils in the U.S. have perfectly adequate levels of Phosphorus and Potassium, and even though they don't need any more from your fertilizer, people use them anyway. This is a problem because too much Phosphorus locks other nutrients OUT of plants.

Iron and Zinc deficiencies are common in Soil over-loaded with non-dissolving P. A fatal disease in livestock called 'Grass Tetany' -- a complex condition linked to Mg deficiency in cows and other ruminants -- is examined by French author André Voisin: 'Excessive and repeated dressings of Potassium fertilizers cause Magnesium deficiencies in plants, particularly Grasses...' It's even bad for the animals that depend on them; they too develop Mg deficiency:

www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010106voisin/010106gtchap6.html

Organic Phosphates provide energy for chemical reactions in plant and animal growth and cell reactions. But too much and you end up with growth out of control.

When this happens in a lake, you find so much growing going on that they run out of Oxygen; you end up with a lot of dead plants and animals.

Phosphate pollution is so bad in some areas, people are pushing for a 'Phosphate Fertilizer Act' to deal with it. Phosphorus would be legal only if a Soil Test showed it was needed; only if you were planting new Seed or installing new Sod; or if you're a licensed greenskeeper at a golf course.

You can see how hard fertilizer companies would push to block this law. Their profits depend on getting people to use fertilizer ALL the time, not just when they need it.

Making Phosphate fertilizer is no picnic, either. That's a big problem in Florida, where it's a billion dollar industry. Phosphate fertilizer contains radioactive lead and polonium.

Mine the Phosphate and you end up with radioactive byproducts. As environmentalist George C. Glasser points out, 'Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly operations... People living near the fertilizer plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average.' You can read his article, 'Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection', in the online Pure Water Gazette:

www.purewatergazette.net/fluorideandphosphate.htm

Potassium (K) is essential for plant growth. K is generally not considered an environmental problem; in parts of the world where high levels were recorded, industrial waste (and not fertilizer) was blamed. Plants absorb K very efficienty when it's dissolved in the water in your Soil. As with P, too much K in your Soil will chemically lock out other important micronutrients. Calcium and Magnesium are 2 elements upstaged by too much K in Soil.

Now, we all know that Salt damages plants. A Chemical fertilizer is, technically, a Chemical Salt: an Ionic Compound. It can be produced by the reaction of an Acid and a Base; by combining a Cation (positively charged Ion) and an Anion (negative charged Ion) or a Metal and an Acid.

A Salt gets its name from the Cation, followed by the name of the Anion. NaCl - Sodium Chloride, aka Table Salt, is a Sodium Cation bonded to a Chloride Anion. (NH4)2SO4 - Ammonium Sulfate, the preferred N fertilizer for Lawns and Golf Courses, is an Ammonium Cation and a Sulfate Anion. Ca(NO3)2 - Calcium Nitrate, a Calcium Cation and a Nitrate Anion. CO(NH2)2 is Urea, the most inexpensive Nitrogen fertilizer, made of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) (Ammonia bonds directly with Acids to form 'Ammonium Salts').

That, in a very large nutshell, is the problem with chemical fertilizers. Any questions?

THE LONG ISLAND GARDENER

ginjawarrior said:

lol was just reading what John Flicker, National Audubon Society, president. was sayin about wind farms, he agrees with them by the way but he says it better than i could

Flicker summed up the Audubon perspective with stark directness. "When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them," he said. "With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds."

Click to expand...

Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more!

ginjawarrior said:

well the thing about migratory birds is that they follow the same route each year = easy to not put new turbines in their path.
new turbines are more efficient than before and safer to the bird population

i have looked online for these killing fields of birds yet can only find the cali site you showed. please show me more so that i can see what your talking about.

bird protection agencies across america are seeing that wind turbines are NOT the horrible killer that you make them out to be.

EVERYONE with even a modicum of sense know that fossil fuels and petrol chemicals ARE horrilbe killers

fossil fuels = burning to create energy isnt it time to step away from caveman technologies and actualy start using the nigh on limitless renewable power that is around us every where on this tiny little rock?

Click to expand...

Exactly! This is one site. It is old, was put in a bad spot and has blades that come very close to the ground. Bird kills are dramatically lower in modern large tower turbines!

Reading one paper, without further reading, and then sticking to one piece of data (which you [crackerjax] originally got from a newspaper article, without reading the original source, or other related research!)...is well not hypocrisy, it is political spin.

CrackerJax said:

So they are just deadly in that one spot? Birds are stupid in cali? think about it.

Move the turbines? Think about that too.


Why do the migratory birds fly through that way.... because of the steady WINDS.

Why are the turbines there? Because of the steady WINDS.

The turbines are going to be placed along migratory paths, because they both want the WIND.

Click to expand...

These birds are active flyers...not passive gliders! They do not follow migratory paths because of steady winds! they migrate North/South while the prevailing winds are West to East. They migrate from wetland to wetland and roost to roost. There is some evidence of magnetic fields being a factor.

Dude you are about as much of an environmentalist as Dick Cheney...Oh wait...that was probably another joke...right?

Oh, I see.

Migratory paths are just what it sounds like... It is the migratory birds being killed. read the article twice if you have to...

In the end it's just another case of ppl who THINK they are environmentalists... but really aren't.
You folks are just like any oil executive. You're for anything which fits ur political perspective. You don't REALLY care about the environment. But it sure makes you sound kewl to ur friends.

There are so many things wrong with wind power. It's bad for the environment and it's not cost effective. Where's the upside??? tell me, where's the upside? It isn't in efficiency...it isn't in cost, it isn't in wildlife, it isn't in scenic beauty.

What is the upside which makes up for all the negatives..... and don't say carbon savings because then I know you have no idea about real environmental science.

I am not defending wind, just trying to shed light on the extreme example that you are portraying as the way modern wind energy is.

The Altamont wind farm is bad. The paper acknowledged the unique location and design as well as flaws in the estimation of removed carcasses by scavengers. Using this one paper and extrapolating the bird massacre is inflammatory and incorrect.

I am not an environmentalist, but I am an ecologist. I think wind farms are an eyesore...as are billboards, power lines, dams, and reservoirs. I will be moving out of their view.

I am not sure if you were still thinking that migratory birds follow the prevailing winds...Altamont may very well be in a North/South canyon with the coast range to the East...IDK...But the Banning Pass, Though there are a few oriented otherwise for off days...the winds blow from west-East most of the year...and blow strong.

Why are you so coal happy? What about rooftop solar? why not have a combination of wind/solar where feasible and appropriate? I really think that wind generators over alfalfa and corn is a lesser evil than the damming of every western tributary. And it is damn well better than removing a mountain...putting it in the next valley over...removing the coal vein....creating a toxic lake while making it "clean" and then pushing the ruble off a steep slope in hopes that the big rocks end up at the bottom and the little rocks on top...that way it will only be 1000 years before the landscape is again fertile enough to support a diverse deciduous forest.

It will be the same everywhere they are installed. I didn't even mention the INSANE amount of new power line grids that will have to be set up all over the country.

We all know we are swimming in money, right? Prepare for your electric bill to rise by 90%. Those are the estimates. In my experience, the estimates are usually conservative.

I'm for not getting pushed around by bad science and new technology. Solar and wind have their place in small measured doses, but it is folly to think we are going to make a switch in an industrial capacity .

Wanna make the cleanest energy possible. It's called nuclear power. Greens hate it.... but only USA greens ....hmmm. different science? Europe embraces nuclear as does Asia. It's the devil incarnate here tho.... how can that be? HYPOCRISY, that's how.

we_dont_need_turbunes_alll_we_need_is_heat_we_coulld_make_heat_engines_that_obsorb_heat_thru_pressure_and_install_them_in_the_desert_in_the_summer

hydro_electricity_and_heat_is_cleAnest_shut_down_nuclear_its_the_appitimy-AND_ROOT_OF_ALL_EVIL

And then there is .... reality.

CrackerJax said:

That may indeed be true, but the alternative is to grow 30% more food.... not possible using organics.

It also came off as an opinion piece.... I would prefer to read the actual study and medical conclusion, which he did not source, unless I missed it. Do you have it?

I always keep an open mind, but reality is a stern mistress.

Click to expand...

I still haven't seen a source for that 30%. I did find a report suggesting that organic growing yields 95% of crops grown under conventional high-input conditions. http://ofrf.org/publications/ib/ib10.pdf

high input conditions is a FRACTION of what's needed..... gonna greenhouse the entire midwest????

So under HIGH INPUT, organic growing is already 5% off of NORMAL non organic growing.... 30% is conservative.

My plants don't know the difference between a grow cup and a hole in the ground.

I asked them.

It's ok... the dept of Agriculture knows the difference as do the farmers.

CrackerJax said:

high input conditions is a FRACTION of what's needed..... gonna greenhouse the entire midwest????

So under HIGH INPUT, organic growing is already 5% off of NORMAL non organic growing.... 30% is conservative.

Click to expand...

Umm no, the high input was the conventional crops. Still no source for that 30% figure?

Norman Borlaug on Organic Farming
March 26, 2009, 10:21 am
Reason asked Norman Borlaug about the claim that organic farming is better for the environment and human health and well-being. His answer:

That’s ridiculous. This shouldn’t even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have–the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues–and get them back on the soil, you couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There’s a lot of nonsense going on here.

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it’s up to them to make that foolish decision. But there’s absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can’t tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it’s better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It’s a free society. But don’t tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That’s when this misinformation becomes destructive…

I want to add a big “ditto” to this answer in reference to the whole food miles and locally grown food movement. There is a lot of evidence that trying to get all of our food locally will actually increase energy use. It will certainly harm the environment by increasing land use.

Why? Because currently, economic incentives push farming of a particular food item towards the land that is best-suited and most productive for that item (government subsidies, both direct, e.g. farm programs, and indirect, e.g. subsidized water for agriculture in arid areas like Arizona and SoCal, interfere with this, but that is a different subject). The locally grown food movement seeks to shift crops from large productive farms located in the best soils and climates for that crop to smaller farms located in sub-optimal growing areas. This HAS to increase agricultural land use, prices, and in many case, energy use. More here.

============================================================================================
Tomatoes
* 122sq m of land is needed to produce a tonne of organic vine tomatoes. The figure for conventionally-grown loose tomatoes is 19sq m.
* Energy needed to grow organic tomatoes is 1.9 times that of conventional methods.
* Organic tomatoes grown in heated greenhouses in Britain generate one hundred times the amount of CO2 per kilogram produced by tomatoes in unheated greenhouses in southern Spain.
Milk
* Requires 80 per cent more land to produce per unit than conventional milk.
* Produces nearly 20 per cent more carbon dioxide and almost double the amount of other by-products that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water courses.
Chickens
* Organic birds require 25 per cent more energy to rear and grow than conventional methods.
* The amount of CO2 generated per bird is 6.7kg for organic compared to 4.6kg for conventional battery or barn hens.
* Eutrophication, the potential for nutrient-rich by-products to pollute water courses, is measured at 86 for organic compared to 49 for conventional.
* The depletion of natural resources is measured at 99 for organic birds compared to 29 for battery or barn hens.

I don't see anything in that piece on Borlaug about 30% less with organic, I see no citations to research showing organic yields 30% less. I couldn't find that part on Tomatoes, Milk, or chickens on either reason or coyoteblog.

Just look at tomatoes alone.... it's blatantly obvious. 122 sq. m. to 19 sq mt. that right there says it takes 10 acres of organic tomatoes to match the output of 1 acre of conventional. Sound efficient?

Organic farming also pollutes MORE..... that's enough for me to say no. I'm an environmentalist.

CrackerJax said:

Just look at tomatoes alone.... it's blatantly obvious. 122 sq. m. to 19 sq mt. that right there says it takes 10 acres of organic tomatoes to match the output of 1 acre of conventional. Sound efficient?

Organic farming also pollutes MORE..... that's enough for me to say no. I'm an environmentalist.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at that. Was it a press release from Monsanto? I see nothing in your post about where those figures came from and I couldn't find them on either of the blogs you linked to. What is the source(s) for those figures?

Those figures were pulled from the UK... hardly a Monsanto headquarters..... now what?

I can pull numbers like that all day from many sources.... organics isn't as efficient and it certainly isn't less polluting.