|
THE
TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGING
(part two)
Ask
any farmer and he may tell you that he is using four or five times
more fertilizer today than twenty years ago but the crop yields are
lower. This is simply because too much of any substance upsets the
delicate balance of nature. High nitrogen fertilizers destroy beneficial
fungi, bacteria, and other soil organisms (including earthworms). Organic
matter then cannot be recycled effectively when these creatures are
gone so the levels of soil humus drop and the final result is land
that cannot grow much of anything without more chemical. This is a
pretty good deal for the guys who make synthetic fertilizers but bad
news for the rest of us. The truth is that plants can only use so much
nitrogen as they grow. Any excessive amount applied is left behind
to dissipate back into the air (pure nitrogen is a gas) or eventually
form nitrates that wind up in our water supply.
 The answer to this problem is to switch back to natural nitrogen sources. Organic
fertilizers are by nature low in nitrogen and depend upon bacteria and other
microbes to slowly make this nitrogen available to plants .Rainfall for example
will test out to be only about 4% nitrogen. So what grows plants better than
natural rainfall?...........you guessed it!! As these fertilizers decompose they
form humus. Humus acts to hold water and minerals (including N,P, and K) for
plant use. As the humus and soil organisms return the natural recycling system
(composting) begins once again. After the soil becomes healthy the gardener or
farmer actually can reduce the amount of fertilizer they apply. A startling concept
to those who keep having to apply more but nonetheless true. For those that would
like to see the proof you can go to the City of Austin website or type in growgreen.com.
In 2002, Austin became interested in reducing nitrate levels in their aquifers
and hired Texas A&M to test several brands and formulations of fertilizers
to see which would be best to recommend to their citizens. As you might guess,
the organic fertilizers left behind far less nitrate leachate than the synthetic
fertilizers. The real surprise to Tony Provin, the A&M scientist who was
in charge, was that the organic fertilizers also produced healthier, better looking
grass............no kidding!
The best organic fertilizer for all plants and all situations is compost itself.
Since compost is derived from living material, all minerals and elements needed
to sustain new life are returned to the soil as these materials decompose. There
is no waste. The system is perfect regardless of soil type (sand, clay, ect.)
or the crops grown on that soil. Of course there are those who are going to have
a problem with physically spreading enough compost to cover a 5,000 sq. ft. lawn
not to mention a 500 acre field. It is being done by some and the results speak
for themselves. Mother Nature has been very successful for many millions of years
and men have been able to feed themselves by following her example since before
written history. Composting is still the only truly sustainable form of agriculture
today. Compost is readily available in bulk and very cost effective but there
is an easier way.
Several companies have begun mining what are known as mineral fertilizers. These
include humates, lava sand, and green sand among others. This type of fertilizer
contains little or no nitrogen but does contain high concentrations of all other
minerals and elements to help rebuild soils and improve water holding capacities.
Humates in particular contain humic acids, an essential ingredient to soil health.
Combined with an organic nitrogen source these mineral fertilizers can restore
life to a chemically dependant soil using conventional spreaders. Although these
soil builders are mined products and as such are not sustainable they still are
very effective. For those of you who want to make the switch but are thinking
that it will take too long to rebuild your soil, this method will keep things
up to par the first year and show positive results by the second year.
Another newly emerging technique is the use of the microbes themselves. Biotechnology
has advanced to the point that we now have the ability to isolate beneficial
bacteria, fungi, and other soil microbes. These microbes can be packaged and
introduced into the soil to naturally produce useable nitrogen from air, enhance
root growth, and even destroy disease pathogens in the soil. This is a new and
exciting technology. As time goes by we are beginning to see conventional fertilizers
and pesticides replaced by beneficial microbes, beneficial insects, insect pathogens
and parasites. The use of conventional fertilizers and pesticides could actually
become obsolete in the near future. As more of these natural organisms. and soil
builders are used, the healthier our environment becomes, and we humans (being
at the top of the food chain) will benefit the most.
So what about all those chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides we used
in the past? Are they not just as toxic or even more so than the nitrates from
fertilizer? Absolutely! Nitrates are the number one cause of water pollution,
but definitely not the only cause. The simple rule of thumb has become this; "Don't
put anything on your property that you don't want in your drinking water." As
rain falls and runoff occurs the only place this stuff can go is into your groundwater,
streams, lakes, and eventually the ocean. Personally, I really enjoy eating seafood
and would like to continue to do so. Wouldn't you?
The answer to the pesticide issue is basically the same as fertilizers. As we
move into the 21st century, we find that there simply is not an insect or disease
that cannot be controlled with natural products. A good example of this is mosquito
control. West Nile virus has become a real concern in our state. Local health
departments have found a very effective treatment is to apply BTI products (bacillus
thuringensis israelensis). This inert bacteria kills mosquito larvae in the water
before they have a chance to become adults. While BTI is deadly to mosquito larvae,
it has no effect at all on birds, fish, other insects, or humans. Spray programs
are really not very effective (although it's hard to find a health official honest
enough to admit this) for three reasons. The poison spray (nerve agent) must
actually come into contact with the mosquito to kill it. Secondly as the spray
drifts it becomes less and less effective as the air dilutes it and third the
same poison will kill beneficial predators that are out there consuming mosquitoes
at the same time (dragonflies, birds, frogs, fish, ect.). So we have been killing
off our friends who eat tons of mosquitoes every day and in doing so make it
necessary to use even more spray. Again, this is great for the big chemical companies
but not so good for the rest of us. This example is fairly typical of most of
our attempts at insect control. Spraying poison offers quick control in the relatively
small area it covers with overkill, pollution, and eventual health issues in
the long term. Biological controls don't pollute or kill unintended victims.
The stories of synthetic herbicides and fungicides are again the same as synthetic
fertilizer and pesticide. Unfortunately every day in any given city, dozens (hundreds
in the big cities) of trucks load up with thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals
to spray our homes, lawns, and food crops. Each day they return empty to refill
and do it again tomorrow. This results in millions of tons hazardous waste that
we absorb through our skin, breathe in our air, and drink from our water. All
for the sake of green, weed free, and/or bug free landscapes, which, for the
record have never really been weed free or bug free for any appreciable length
of time. Once again, all of this can be done using non-toxic methods and these
same companies could keep making the same money doing it. Unfortunately as long
as the lawn chemical and pest control companies continue making plenty of money
using toxic applications, they see no need to change. It's up to us as consumers
to demand it. It's ironic that our TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)
encourages us to dispose of toxic wastes properly and sends out trucks to central
locations (this is a free service by the way) to pick up our empty containers.
If these empty or partially empty containers are so dangerous then that leaves
any astute individual with this question; "What about the stuff that was
INSIDE those containers?" That leads us to our next topic which will discuss
the human condition and politics concerning these issues. Next month.
If you've read my last two articles on water, fertilizer, and chemical use, then
followed up by doing a little research on your own, by now you are beginning
to wonder why it has taken so long for these things to become common knowledge.
The good news is they finally are. The reason that it has taken so long is that
the demand for safe and sustainable landscaping/agriculture products has come
from the bottom up. We as consumers have become more educated and are now willing
to do what it takes to live in a healthy environment, eat healthy foods, and
drink clean water. The bad news is the opposition is formidable. That opposition
is called big business and politics. The politics are that billions of dollars
and millions of jobs are at stake. It stands to reason that you can't expect
rapid change because that will upset the apple cart, although even politicians
understand that change is necessary.
The old system of using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides was created by big
business and politics. After the United States had won the first and second world
wars we found that we had a huge surplus of chemicals on hand. We had built factories
to produce these chemicals and these factories employed a good number of citizens.
So with a few modifications the same factories could still be used making agriculture
and landscaping products. Long story short, some explosives became fertilizers
(you've heard of the "fertilizer bomb") and DDT along with some nerve
gas formulations were now being used as pesticides. The only thing needed was
to sell these products to the farmer and a trusting American homeowner. So salesmen
were hired to market the products and the deal was done. Who knew?
We all know the story of DDT by now so we won't get into that. However, after
DDT more and more of these chemicals were found to have an afterlife (or having
impact on organisms that went well beyond killing insects, weeds, or making the
soil fertile). More were removed from the market and we continue to see a history
of this to the present day. Before long the general public showed a growing mistrust
for these "safe when used as directed" chemicals. So the stage was
set for better, safer methods driven by consumer demand.
In 1999, a group of neurologists and pediatricians published their findings concerning
the effects of various pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides on fetuses and
young children. The report entitled "In Harm's Way" can be seen on
the web at http://www.igc.org/psr/. This scientific report gives startling facts
as to how much exposure to neurotoxins we have in our daily lives and how these
toxins adversely affect brain and nerve development.
part
three |
