"I see that Ringer Lawn Restore as well as the Scotts organic fertilizer have things like bone meal and feather meal. Do these require microorganisms to break them down in order to release the nitrogen?"

Yes, microbes break down bone meal and feather meal to release nitrogen. FWIW, microbes also break down synthetics to release nitrogen.

-Deerslayer

I was under the impression that at least part of the synthetics just required water. If the synthetics require microbes, then why do people warn against using organics when the weather starts to cool down.

Yes, soil microbes act on synthetic fertilizers. This link is a bit scientific but explains the chemistry of the conversion.

Nitrogen Fertilizers

There are numerous misconceptions regarding soil biology...many of them propogated on this forum. Here's a quote from the Texas A&M website.

"Frequently we see statements in the lay literature about chemical fertilizers killing soil microbes or, worse yet, statements indicating these management inputs "sterilize" the soil. Statements such as these should be viewed with much skepticism!"

Here's the link:

Soil FAQS

Here's another interesting link:

Soil Biology

Here's a good takeaway from the above web site:

"Fixation can occur naturally by soil microbes that take N2 gas and bio-chemically change it over to NH4+. Some of these microbes (i,e, Rhyzobia species bacteria) accomplish this by symbiotically fixing the N2 gas using energy from the legume plants on whose roots they live, while other free-living bacteria accomplish this on their own in the soil environment."

Unfortunately, many of the folks here reduce soil biology to "if you can eat it, it must be good".

-Deerslayer

I got a bit carried away with my previous response and didn't directly answer your question. The main reason people recommend not using organic fertilizers when the weather begins to cool is because organics require complex microbial activity which can take several weeks to activate N release. On the other hand, the N release from a synthetic such as, urea 46-0-0 is nearly immediate. This is because urea is closer to the N form that plants need. Both organic and synthetic fertilizers rely on some microbial activity.

FWIW, I am not a proponent of using synthetics. I use primarily organic fertilizers. However, I view organic lawn care as a science not a religion.

-Deerslayer

Well, a well known soil food web researcher once told me that urea can cause nasty bacteria growth in the cool weather...

You can use organics for a winterizer, but the trick is you need to maintain high organic levels throughout the fall.

I maintain a consistently high nitrogen level through November by a monthly (3-4 weeks) August through October feeding of alfalfa meal, soybean meal and milogoranite at ~ 10-15 lbs/ 1000 ft^2. I also spread compost in summer/fall, weekly mulch mow high and will never rake a leaf from my property.

I am concerned about the impact of localized concentrated inorganic fertilizer on soil microbes, but believe that the soil foodweb is robust and can eventually recover from adverse events.

urea MSDS

Some say use chemicals to get the lawn strong and than gradually convert to organics. I have spot treated with weed b gone but have never used an insecticide or an inorganic fertilizer.

I prefer slow to moderate release organics because I like the way an organic lawn smells, believe it is greener and more robust and I know that I am not contributing to nitrogen pollution of waterways.

My neighbors with a chemical lawns that mulch mows high requested my assistance this summer when his lawn was going dormant. I had him dig in some areas and we noted that his soil was gray and bone dry. He changed from weekly to daily watering through summer and the lawn stayed somewhat green. After that I went home and checked my soil. It was brown-black and moist with the same watering regime. I stuck with weekly waterings and my green lawn never went dormant.

All in all, it comes down to what suits you best.

I am looking for an organic way to winterize, and people here have said that a late November application of soy bean meal or corn meal gluten would not really work.

I guess I have to ask what 'winterize' means to you? To the Scotts's people it means being able to make their Christmas bonus as well as their boat payments all winter. Mother Nature winterizes by covering the surface of the planet with deciduous leaves and then snowing on them. Is there a certain effect you are after? If I lived where snow was expected, I would apply ORDINARY corn meal or cracked corn to ward off any diseases under the leaves or snow. I have a Canadian friend who tells me this works against snow mold.

deerslayer: I'm not sure what your point was in the message with the external links. If the first one was supposed to convince me that soil microbes had a substantive effect on converting synthetic fertilizer to a usable form, it didn't take.

The second one is the most lucid discussion I've ever seen out of TAMU on organics. I'm very used to reading stuff clearly written by people who had no clue what a soil microbe was. Usually they title the article with an organic term, dance around with that term and how much more successful the use of synthetic chemicals is, and call it a day.

The third link was the most lucid discussion I've ever seen out of Jerry Parsons on the topic of organics. He has been the San Antonio ag extension agent for decades and is well known from many television appearances. I think the reason for his many appearances is the fact that his accent is so thick that even native Texans cannot understand him. Incomprehensible is a term that comes to mind. It is like all his syllables run into one 5-minute long word. But enough about disabilities (joking, but it really is hilarious to hear him speak). Parsons has never met a chemical he didn't like. He only learned about organics after a practical joke was played on him and a load of compost was dumped on his yard. Several months after the compost was hauled away he noticed a green spot on his yard where the compost had been dumped. That was the beginning of a rather limited interest in the subject. While his article is the most lucid I've seen from him, it does not always track. He asks questions that he never answers...unless the best thing you can do for microbes is to feed them with synthetic fertilizer. I was not convinced that feeding ammonium sulfate would be a better food than corn meal. I just threw away some ammonium sulfate that I found in my garage. It had been there since the early 90s and had no visible biological activity in the bag. On the other hand, corn meal gets bugs in the bag and can be fully decomposed in just a few months.

And if you can eat it, it is good for your soil. If the microbes in your digestive tract can survive on our food, then the microbes in the soil can handle it. They can handle much worse than we can eat, but saying that our food is good for the soil is generally a true statement. Moreover, the point of using materials that we can eat as a fertilizer is that we feel safe applying them. The worst thing that happens when my daughters and I have a corn meal fight on the front lawn is that we get it in our eyes. But it doesn't sting or burn, it just feels gritty and we blink it out. What is so unfortunate about fertilizing with food? Keeping it simple really works.

Deerslayer,

Things never change with you. You keep giving out bad information even after I told you to to read Dr Elaine's stuff which is far superior to what you were giving. Jeez....

Lou, what is it that you disagree with? I've asked you before but you don't respond.

-Deerslayer

"If the first one was supposed to convince me that soil microbes had a substantive effect on converting synthetic fertilizer to a usable form, it didn't take."

Okay, I'll try again. Soil microbes (bacteria) are required in the nitrification process. This is true for organic fertilizers and synthetic fertilizers such as urea. Here's a link that explains the process.

Nitrification Bacteria

-Deerslayer

Thanks deerslayer. I should clarify...I am already convinced that microbes are involved with nitrification. It is just that the article(s) you reference do not really prove or demonstrate it. That's what I meant to say. Although I am convinced, I would not be convinced by reading those links. The work done in the links simply use the "well known" fact that microbes convert the ions.

What I am really looking for is something that shows that the "nitrobacter" microbes actually feed and thrive on the synthetic fertilizer rather than simply converting one ion to another. It could even be that the +4 ion is required like a vitamin for the microbes in the process. On the other hand the ion conversion process could result from the ions interacting with enzymes in the waste products of the nitrobacter microbes rather than the metabolism of the ions in a food sense. I also believe the "nitrobacter" bacteria are not just one or two species but more like tens or hundreds of species involved in the nitrification process. And I'm convinced it is a different combination of species for each type of fertilizer.

And that gets back to what I said earlier. The more different kinds of feedstuffs you have in your fertilizer, the more diversity you will have in soil microbe species. At this point who's to say which ones are better? Corn meal has some attraction but maybe cottonseed meal is better. Or maybe mung bean meal is better than all of them. Personally I would like to see the lima beans of the world and all the beans in 3-bean salad converted to a humanitarian use as fertilizer.

What I am really looking for is something that shows that the "nitrobacter" microbes actually feed and thrive on the synthetic fertilizer rather than simply converting one ion to another.

There's kind of a faint indication of that embedded in there what with the oxidation process outlined, but yes, more data would be welcome...

Personally I would like to see the lima beans of the world and all the beans in 3-bean salad converted to a humanitarian use as fertilizer.

I'll second you on the three bean salad, but please save some limas for me. :-) I'll also take the Brussels sprouts from anybody who can't stand them.

"What I am really looking for is something that shows that the "nitrobacter" microbes actually feed and thrive on the synthetic fertilizer rather than simply converting one ion to another."

As you probably know, it's not easy finding links to support a particular position when you get to this level. I agree that my earlier first link did not explain microbial interactions with synthetics very well. In my defense, I believe I post many more supporting sources that are credible than most people here. Most folks simply post unsupported anecdotes or organic dogma.

Getting back to what you are looking for, below is a study on the growth rates of nitrobacter and nitrosomonas bacteria.

Nitrobacter Growth

Note under "Materials and Methods" that the medium for the nitrobacter experiment was pure chemical. The medium contained: ammonia, potassium, phosphorous, magnesium, and calcium compounds. At the optimal temperature and pH, the nitrobacter cultures thrived in this pure chemical medium.

If you can post a link from a credible source that disputes the above, please post it.

I also have a question. If you knew that soil microbes were involved with the nitrification process of synthetics, why didn't you admit it rather than denigrating my link? After all, the fact that soil microbes are needed in the synthetic fertilizer cycle was my main point.

-Deerslayer

As you probably know, it's not easy finding links to support a particular position when you get to this level. I agree that my earlier first link did not explain microbial interactions with synthetics very well. In my defense, I believe I post many more supporting sources that are credible than most people here.

Yes. Thanks for the effort.

Most folks simply post unsupported anecdotes or organic dogma.

This forum is all about anecdotes. All anecdotes all the time. If you are looking for academic level forums, you are definitely in the wrong place. The best organic dogma is available on any site that mentions Rodale. At least GardenWeb has moved out of the 1800s. For the most part, GardenWeb is really about as up to date as you can get, anecdotes and all. I consider the anecdotes to be experiential evidence. These mountains of experience are typically purposely left out of academic studies.

Getting back to what you are looking for, below is a study on the growth rates of nitrobacter and nitrosomonas bacteria.

Nitrobacter Growth

Am I reading that right? There's no soil involved in that experiment?

If you can post a link from a credible source that disputes the above, please post it.

Not credible or incredible.

I also have a question. If you knew that soil microbes were involved with the nitrification process of synthetics, why didn't you admit it rather than denigrating my link? After all, the fact that soil microbes are needed in the synthetic fertilizer cycle was my main point.

Soil microbes are involved in the decomposition of just about every chemical. Some materials decompose quickly, like food, and some take decades, like DDT. I was trying to keep you honest. You mentioned soil microbes decomposing chemicals and gave a link to a chemistry site. Had you given a link to a biology site, it probably would have explained it. If you had left out the link, I would not have said anything about it. If you're feeling picked on, look around. I might be the least of your worries.

"At least GardenWeb has moved out of the 1800s. For the most part, GardenWeb is really about as up to date as you can get, anecdotes and all."

I must be missing something.

I think that the notion of being "leading edge" and "experiential" is sometimes used as an excuse for ignorance of previous rigorous research and science in general.

"Am I reading that right? There's no soil involved in that experiment?"

Yes, you are correct.

Hydroponics, the science of growing plants without soil, is far from being a new concept. The hanging gardens of Babylon, the floating gardens of the Aztecs of Mexico and those of the Chinese are early examples of hydroponics. The growing of plants in water is described in Egyptian writings dating back to several hundred years before Christ.

If plants can grow without soil, the bacteria that provide nutrients to the plants must be able to live without soil.

What were you saying about the knowledge in this forum being up-to-date? 8^)

"Soil microbes are involved in the decomposition of just about every chemical."

The key point went well beyond that. The soil microbes that are responsible for the nitrification of organic fertilizer are the same soil microbes that are responsible for the nitrification of synthetic fertilizer. In fact, the nitrification process is identical. I have seen many unsupported posts here to the contrary.

Again, what were you saying about the knowledge in this forum being up-to-date? 8^)

"If you're feeling picked on, look around. I might be the least of your worries."

I never feel picked on. If you are referring to a certain hit-and-run poster, I don't take him seriously. He doesn't appear to have the ability to engage in a civil discussion.

As a point of clarification, anecdotes and experiential evidence certainly have a place in this forum. However, I believe that the acknowledgment of scientific research is also important. This forum is very long on the former and short on the latter.

-Deerslayer

I'm going to assume rutgers is happy with the initial replies on this and forget about the question. In other words, I consider this thread to be officially hijacked. If I am incorrect, please, rutgers, reply now or forever hold your peace.

If you look around the Internet at other gardening forums, too many refuse to acknowledge organic gardening as a program that can work. Of those few that do acknowledge it, those associated with Rodale are pretty much stuck on compost being the only "approved" (by Rodale) material to use; and tilling being the best preparation for the soil. Some other forums are beyond any hope of science providing answers. They want to contradict anything scientific unless it specifically agrees with they they have been saying. I have played in both those arenas. Too often there are dips into pure fiction and just plain hope. I'm going to ignore the followers of Jerry Baker because they are usually not hurting anyone with their approach. In my previous message I was just comparing the GardenWeb forums with the other organic forums I have seen. I was not comparing with an ideal perfect universe.

In my perfect universe, the universities would have equal amounts of organic certified soil and un-certifiable soil (never any DDT for example) for research. There would also be equal amounts of funding and knowledgeable researchers ready, willing, and able to get going. And there would at least be someone in academia listening to the masses to see what they have tried and are claiming to be working. The research on corn meal against crop (and lawn) fungal disease ceased when the lead guy died in the 90s. I'd like to know why greensand greens up St Aug turf on alkaline soil after a rainstorm and nothing else works. I'd like to know more about why a surface dusting of baking soda seems to kill crabgrass in 4 days (in southern lawns). I'd like to know more about why vinegar sprays kill plants but a soil drench seems to feed them. I'd like to know if/how plants can control and change the sugar chemistry they send to the soil in response to environmental stresses they receive. I'd like to know more about foliar feeding of proteins on plants and the plants' response to that. I'd like to see someone take a nutrition approach to soil microbes and the food they eat (deerslayer probably saw that one coming and is groaning right now).

Another thing I've seen is unhealthy competition among organic academes. "My organic is better than your organic." We've had people here who play that game and we have all lost as the GardenWeb masters kicked them off the forums. I'm not just talking about one person, either. Some of us are too easily offended by different approaches. Deerslayer, I'm not taking your organic approach to task. I'm just trying to keep you honest. I apologize for the language I used where you thought I was denigrating your message. I can see that, but it wasn't meant that way. I'm a work in progress in many ways.

Regarding hit-and-run posters: I've been accused of that, too. Sometimes our time budgets allow frequent visits here and suddenly we can be called away in the middle of one or more threads. That's just the way it is. I wish they had a way for us to subscribe to threads so we could see what's happening.

DCHAll, thanks for the thoughtful post.

You have quite a list of questions! I think I can help with one of them. The reason vinegar kills plants when applied to their leaves is because vinegar is a mild acid. The vinegar literally burns the plant.

Vinegar used as a soil drench changes the pH of the soil to more acidic. When planted in alkaline or neutral soils, plants that prefer acidic soils such as, Azaleas will have a positive response to a vinegar soil drench. The soil drench acts as a localized pH adjustment.

-Deerslayer