Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #442879August 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443073
Veritas
ParticipantTo bob2007, Keeping it real is better. I think the fake grass can also be a fire hazard.
Fertilizer: Organic (Natural) versus Chemical (Inorganic)
“The argument continues. The organic proponents say only organic should be used. The chemical proponents have their argument of high analysis and quicker availability. Why don’t we consult Nature and see how she has been feeding plants life since the very beginning?”“A bag of organic fertilizer has all the carbon/energy to meet the needs of the soil microbes. A bag of chemical fertilizer has no energy. If organic matter is not already present in the soil, the chemicals can quickly become stressful, even toxic, to the plants. This causes plants to be susceptible to disease and insect problems.”
“Organic fertilizers are believed to be slower acting than the chemical fertilizers. This is true to a degree. Being a lower NPK analysis and slower acting, organic fertilizers can be used in higher volume around plants without danger of burning. However, there are some organic fertilizers that are fast acting, such as bat guano or fish meal, that can show results as quickly as the chemical fertilizers do. They are still slower to burn the plants than the chemicals and last much longer in the soil.”
“Unless chemical fertilizers are impregnated or coated with a microbe inhibitor and some substance to keep them from quickly dissolving, they must be used very cautiously. Especially in sandy soils, they can burn the roots of the plants and quickly leach beyond the reach of the roots. They generally end up polluting a water supply because they are too quickly dissolved and moved out of the soil. In heavy clay soils or any soil with a high organic and humus content, this is less of a problem.”
“Chemical fertilizers that are blended to perfectly fit a given soil and then used in the correct season and correct amounts can do nothing more than grow a plant. They do not build or sustain a healthy soil. Organic fertilizers contain the energy and the many other things that continually build soil fertility, crumb structure, increased water holding capacity, food for all the beneficial soil life, condition the soil and contribute to the hundreds of other yet-unknown things that cause a plant to grow healthy and perfect.”
“Only healthy and perfectly grown plants can feed and support healthy and perfect animal and human life.”
It is entirely up to you what you want to put on your plants and in your yard. It is still a free country last time I checked.
http://www.malcolmbeck.com/books/gv_method/FertilizerOrganicNaturalversusChemicalInorganic.htm
August 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443411ParticipantTo bob2007, Keeping it real is better. I think the fake grass can also be a fire hazard.
Fertilizer: Organic (Natural) versus Chemical (Inorganic)
“The argument continues. The organic proponents say only organic should be used. The chemical proponents have their argument of high analysis and quicker availability. Why don’t we consult Nature and see how she has been feeding plants life since the very beginning?”“A bag of organic fertilizer has all the carbon/energy to meet the needs of the soil microbes. A bag of chemical fertilizer has no energy. If organic matter is not already present in the soil, the chemicals can quickly become stressful, even toxic, to the plants. This causes plants to be susceptible to disease and insect problems.”
“Organic fertilizers are believed to be slower acting than the chemical fertilizers. This is true to a degree. Being a lower NPK analysis and slower acting, organic fertilizers can be used in higher volume around plants without danger of burning. However, there are some organic fertilizers that are fast acting, such as bat guano or fish meal, that can show results as quickly as the chemical fertilizers do. They are still slower to burn the plants than the chemicals and last much longer in the soil.”
“Unless chemical fertilizers are impregnated or coated with a microbe inhibitor and some substance to keep them from quickly dissolving, they must be used very cautiously. Especially in sandy soils, they can burn the roots of the plants and quickly leach beyond the reach of the roots. They generally end up polluting a water supply because they are too quickly dissolved and moved out of the soil. In heavy clay soils or any soil with a high organic and humus content, this is less of a problem.”
“Chemical fertilizers that are blended to perfectly fit a given soil and then used in the correct season and correct amounts can do nothing more than grow a plant. They do not build or sustain a healthy soil. Organic fertilizers contain the energy and the many other things that continually build soil fertility, crumb structure, increased water holding capacity, food for all the beneficial soil life, condition the soil and contribute to the hundreds of other yet-unknown things that cause a plant to grow healthy and perfect.”
“Only healthy and perfectly grown plants can feed and support healthy and perfect animal and human life.”
It is entirely up to you what you want to put on your plants and in your yard. It is still a free country last time I checked.
http://www.malcolmbeck.com/books/gv_method/FertilizerOrganicNaturalversusChemicalInorganic.htm
August 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443480ParticipantTo bob2007, Keeping it real is better. I think the fake grass can also be a fire hazard.
Fertilizer: Organic (Natural) versus Chemical (Inorganic)
“The argument continues. The organic proponents say only organic should be used. The chemical proponents have their argument of high analysis and quicker availability. Why don’t we consult Nature and see how she has been feeding plants life since the very beginning?”“A bag of organic fertilizer has all the carbon/energy to meet the needs of the soil microbes. A bag of chemical fertilizer has no energy. If organic matter is not already present in the soil, the chemicals can quickly become stressful, even toxic, to the plants. This causes plants to be susceptible to disease and insect problems.”
“Organic fertilizers are believed to be slower acting than the chemical fertilizers. This is true to a degree. Being a lower NPK analysis and slower acting, organic fertilizers can be used in higher volume around plants without danger of burning. However, there are some organic fertilizers that are fast acting, such as bat guano or fish meal, that can show results as quickly as the chemical fertilizers do. They are still slower to burn the plants than the chemicals and last much longer in the soil.”
“Unless chemical fertilizers are impregnated or coated with a microbe inhibitor and some substance to keep them from quickly dissolving, they must be used very cautiously. Especially in sandy soils, they can burn the roots of the plants and quickly leach beyond the reach of the roots. They generally end up polluting a water supply because they are too quickly dissolved and moved out of the soil. In heavy clay soils or any soil with a high organic and humus content, this is less of a problem.”
“Chemical fertilizers that are blended to perfectly fit a given soil and then used in the correct season and correct amounts can do nothing more than grow a plant. They do not build or sustain a healthy soil. Organic fertilizers contain the energy and the many other things that continually build soil fertility, crumb structure, increased water holding capacity, food for all the beneficial soil life, condition the soil and contribute to the hundreds of other yet-unknown things that cause a plant to grow healthy and perfect.”
“Only healthy and perfectly grown plants can feed and support healthy and perfect animal and human life.”
It is entirely up to you what you want to put on your plants and in your yard. It is still a free country last time I checked.
http://www.malcolmbeck.com/books/gv_method/FertilizerOrganicNaturalversusChemicalInorganic.htm
August 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443659ParticipantTo bob2007, Keeping it real is better. I think the fake grass can also be a fire hazard.
Fertilizer: Organic (Natural) versus Chemical (Inorganic)
“The argument continues. The organic proponents say only organic should be used. The chemical proponents have their argument of high analysis and quicker availability. Why don’t we consult Nature and see how she has been feeding plants life since the very beginning?”“A bag of organic fertilizer has all the carbon/energy to meet the needs of the soil microbes. A bag of chemical fertilizer has no energy. If organic matter is not already present in the soil, the chemicals can quickly become stressful, even toxic, to the plants. This causes plants to be susceptible to disease and insect problems.”
“Organic fertilizers are believed to be slower acting than the chemical fertilizers. This is true to a degree. Being a lower NPK analysis and slower acting, organic fertilizers can be used in higher volume around plants without danger of burning. However, there are some organic fertilizers that are fast acting, such as bat guano or fish meal, that can show results as quickly as the chemical fertilizers do. They are still slower to burn the plants than the chemicals and last much longer in the soil.”
“Unless chemical fertilizers are impregnated or coated with a microbe inhibitor and some substance to keep them from quickly dissolving, they must be used very cautiously. Especially in sandy soils, they can burn the roots of the plants and quickly leach beyond the reach of the roots. They generally end up polluting a water supply because they are too quickly dissolved and moved out of the soil. In heavy clay soils or any soil with a high organic and humus content, this is less of a problem.”
“Chemical fertilizers that are blended to perfectly fit a given soil and then used in the correct season and correct amounts can do nothing more than grow a plant. They do not build or sustain a healthy soil. Organic fertilizers contain the energy and the many other things that continually build soil fertility, crumb structure, increased water holding capacity, food for all the beneficial soil life, condition the soil and contribute to the hundreds of other yet-unknown things that cause a plant to grow healthy and perfect.”
“Only healthy and perfectly grown plants can feed and support healthy and perfect animal and human life.”
It is entirely up to you what you want to put on your plants and in your yard. It is still a free country last time I checked.
http://www.malcolmbeck.com/books/gv_method/FertilizerOrganicNaturalversusChemicalInorganic.htm
August 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #442642ParticipantContributing to Global Warming
Why would we contribute to global warming by removing life that removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere?According the non-profit group Athena Institute, the replacement of one grass field would require the planting of 1,861 trees, and allowing them to grow for 10 years, to offset the amount of “carbon dioxide sequestration” lost with the grass fields.
David Brown, a public health toxicologist, wrote a column for the Sunday New York Times explaining some of the dangers of creating playing fields out of petroleum products.
He said each square foot of synthetic surface has 10 or so pounds of tire crumbs, which results in about 225 tons of ground-up tires for a field 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. Silver Terrace is at least twice that size.
“(Studies) found that dust from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung,” Brown wrote.
As well, the water that drains off the synthetic fields is channeled into the city’s sewer system, which means it is treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It does not go back into the underground aquifer. (Wasn’t that the problem with Lake Merced?)
Our sewer system can’t handle all of the water during a heavy rain and sometimes untreated effluent is dumped directly into the ocean. This will make that problem worse.
The SF Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2002 to ban the paving over of small green spaces in the front of people’s homes in an effort to keep water flowing into the underground aquifers and out of the city’s storm drainage system. Recently, it passed legislation calling for fines of up to $500 for violators.
But the City is the biggest violator of its own policy. Surprise.
http://www.sunsetbeacon.com/archives/SunsetBeacon/2008Editions/April08/Paulcol.html
August 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #442839ParticipantContributing to Global Warming
Why would we contribute to global warming by removing life that removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere?According the non-profit group Athena Institute, the replacement of one grass field would require the planting of 1,861 trees, and allowing them to grow for 10 years, to offset the amount of “carbon dioxide sequestration” lost with the grass fields.
David Brown, a public health toxicologist, wrote a column for the Sunday New York Times explaining some of the dangers of creating playing fields out of petroleum products.
He said each square foot of synthetic surface has 10 or so pounds of tire crumbs, which results in about 225 tons of ground-up tires for a field 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. Silver Terrace is at least twice that size.
“(Studies) found that dust from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung,” Brown wrote.
As well, the water that drains off the synthetic fields is channeled into the city’s sewer system, which means it is treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It does not go back into the underground aquifer. (Wasn’t that the problem with Lake Merced?)
Our sewer system can’t handle all of the water during a heavy rain and sometimes untreated effluent is dumped directly into the ocean. This will make that problem worse.
The SF Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2002 to ban the paving over of small green spaces in the front of people’s homes in an effort to keep water flowing into the underground aquifers and out of the city’s storm drainage system. Recently, it passed legislation calling for fines of up to $500 for violators.
But the City is the biggest violator of its own policy. Surprise.
http://www.sunsetbeacon.com/archives/SunsetBeacon/2008Editions/April08/Paulcol.html
August 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443175ParticipantContributing to Global Warming
Why would we contribute to global warming by removing life that removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere?According the non-profit group Athena Institute, the replacement of one grass field would require the planting of 1,861 trees, and allowing them to grow for 10 years, to offset the amount of “carbon dioxide sequestration” lost with the grass fields.
David Brown, a public health toxicologist, wrote a column for the Sunday New York Times explaining some of the dangers of creating playing fields out of petroleum products.
He said each square foot of synthetic surface has 10 or so pounds of tire crumbs, which results in about 225 tons of ground-up tires for a field 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. Silver Terrace is at least twice that size.
“(Studies) found that dust from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung,” Brown wrote.
As well, the water that drains off the synthetic fields is channeled into the city’s sewer system, which means it is treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It does not go back into the underground aquifer. (Wasn’t that the problem with Lake Merced?)
Our sewer system can’t handle all of the water during a heavy rain and sometimes untreated effluent is dumped directly into the ocean. This will make that problem worse.
The SF Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2002 to ban the paving over of small green spaces in the front of people’s homes in an effort to keep water flowing into the underground aquifers and out of the city’s storm drainage system. Recently, it passed legislation calling for fines of up to $500 for violators.
But the City is the biggest violator of its own policy. Surprise.
http://www.sunsetbeacon.com/archives/SunsetBeacon/2008Editions/April08/Paulcol.html
August 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443245ParticipantContributing to Global Warming
Why would we contribute to global warming by removing life that removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere?According the non-profit group Athena Institute, the replacement of one grass field would require the planting of 1,861 trees, and allowing them to grow for 10 years, to offset the amount of “carbon dioxide sequestration” lost with the grass fields.
David Brown, a public health toxicologist, wrote a column for the Sunday New York Times explaining some of the dangers of creating playing fields out of petroleum products.
He said each square foot of synthetic surface has 10 or so pounds of tire crumbs, which results in about 225 tons of ground-up tires for a field 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. Silver Terrace is at least twice that size.
“(Studies) found that dust from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung,” Brown wrote.
As well, the water that drains off the synthetic fields is channeled into the city’s sewer system, which means it is treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It does not go back into the underground aquifer. (Wasn’t that the problem with Lake Merced?)
Our sewer system can’t handle all of the water during a heavy rain and sometimes untreated effluent is dumped directly into the ocean. This will make that problem worse.
The SF Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2002 to ban the paving over of small green spaces in the front of people’s homes in an effort to keep water flowing into the underground aquifers and out of the city’s storm drainage system. Recently, it passed legislation calling for fines of up to $500 for violators.
But the City is the biggest violator of its own policy. Surprise.
http://www.sunsetbeacon.com/archives/SunsetBeacon/2008Editions/April08/Paulcol.html
August 8, 2009 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Have you ever considered installing artificial grass? #443422ParticipantContributing to Global Warming
Why would we contribute to global warming by removing life that removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere?According the non-profit group Athena Institute, the replacement of one grass field would require the planting of 1,861 trees, and allowing them to grow for 10 years, to offset the amount of “carbon dioxide sequestration” lost with the grass fields.
David Brown, a public health toxicologist, wrote a column for the Sunday New York Times explaining some of the dangers of creating playing fields out of petroleum products.
He said each square foot of synthetic surface has 10 or so pounds of tire crumbs, which results in about 225 tons of ground-up tires for a field 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. Silver Terrace is at least twice that size.
“(Studies) found that dust from the rubber crumbs contained carcinogens that could be inhaled into the deepest portions of the lung,” Brown wrote.
As well, the water that drains off the synthetic fields is channeled into the city’s sewer system, which means it is treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It does not go back into the underground aquifer. (Wasn’t that the problem with Lake Merced?)
Our sewer system can’t handle all of the water during a heavy rain and sometimes untreated effluent is dumped directly into the ocean. This will make that problem worse.
The SF Board of Supervisors passed legislation in 2002 to ban the paving over of small green spaces in the front of people’s homes in an effort to keep water flowing into the underground aquifers and out of the city’s storm drainage system. Recently, it passed legislation calling for fines of up to $500 for violators.
But the City is the biggest violator of its own policy. Surprise.
http://www.sunsetbeacon.com/archives/SunsetBeacon/2008Editions/April08/Paulcol.html
Participant“German officials noted this week that there has been firm evidence of clunkers there being routed abroad — to Africa and even eastern Europe — and being resold. The Association of Criminal Investigators, or BDK, estimated that about 50,000 cars — polluting makes and models — have been sent outside of Germany. Clunkers in Germany aren’t required to have their engines disabled and thousands have not made it to the scrap yard.”
Participant“German officials noted this week that there has been firm evidence of clunkers there being routed abroad — to Africa and even eastern Europe — and being resold. The Association of Criminal Investigators, or BDK, estimated that about 50,000 cars — polluting makes and models — have been sent outside of Germany. Clunkers in Germany aren’t required to have their engines disabled and thousands have not made it to the scrap yard.”
Participant“German officials noted this week that there has been firm evidence of clunkers there being routed abroad — to Africa and even eastern Europe — and being resold. The Association of Criminal Investigators, or BDK, estimated that about 50,000 cars — polluting makes and models — have been sent outside of Germany. Clunkers in Germany aren’t required to have their engines disabled and thousands have not made it to the scrap yard.”
Participant“German officials noted this week that there has been firm evidence of clunkers there being routed abroad — to Africa and even eastern Europe — and being resold. The Association of Criminal Investigators, or BDK, estimated that about 50,000 cars — polluting makes and models — have been sent outside of Germany. Clunkers in Germany aren’t required to have their engines disabled and thousands have not made it to the scrap yard.”
Participant“German officials noted this week that there has been firm evidence of clunkers there being routed abroad — to Africa and even eastern Europe — and being resold. The Association of Criminal Investigators, or BDK, estimated that about 50,000 cars — polluting makes and models — have been sent outside of Germany. Clunkers in Germany aren’t required to have their engines disabled and thousands have not made it to the scrap yard.”
-
AuthorPosts
