GROWING INTOLERANCE OF CONTAMINATES

UNSUSTAINABLE LAWN CARE

Conventional chemical management tactics (granular or liquid fertilizer) provided by our competitors, big box stores and in general anyone who applies fertilizer is a gross simplification and highly reductionist. The negative impact felt by each application they do is global. Conventional fertilizers have two known carcinogens and contaminates in them. They are the cause of 20% of today’s Greenhouse gas. They cause cancer vie the contamination of water and food sources. They increase algal blooms and the destruction of our great lakes and waterways.

SUSTAINABLE LAWN CARE

Each of our applications reverses these negative impacts as well as promotes you as a Green Sustainable Household. Each application is designed to the specific current time of year. Through the advancement of soil chemistry, the re-introduction of needed fungus, to the establishment and feeding of the soil flora to re-build organic matter (that has been lost through the past use of conventional lawn care products) will ultimately create a healthy vibrant turf that reduces the need for weeds to grow. So, sit back and relax knowing that with each sustainable cost effective application, you are changing climate conditions and saving the planet by simply having Stangl’s doing the right thing!

FOR EARTH DAY, DO NOT USE NPK FERTILIZERS!!!!!

Fertilizer Limits Sought Near Lake Erie to Fight Spread of Algae

By MICHAEL WINESFEB. 26, 2014

Inside

Photo

Some of the algal blooms are so poisonous that they have killed dogs and sickened swimmers. Credit Brenda Culler/ODNR Coastal Management     

A United States-Canadian agency called on Wednesday for swift and sweeping limits on the use of fertilizer around Lake Erie to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the water and creating a vast blanket of algae each summer, threatening fisheries, tourism and even drinking water. 

 

In a report on the algae problem, the agency, the International Joint Commission, said that fertilizer swept by rains from farms and lawns was a major source of phosphorus in the lake. It recommended that crop insurance be tied to farmers’ adoption of practices that limit fertilizer runoff,  and that Ontario, Ohio and Pennsylvania ban most sales of phosphorus-based lawn fertilizers.

 

The commission, which studies and regulates water uses in streams and lakes along the border of the United States and Canada, urged Michigan and Ohio to invoke the Clean Water Act to limit phosphorus pollution from farmland as opposed to from factories and other places where pollution can be pinpointed and measured.

 

The proposals are likely to encounter strong opposition from the agricultural industry and fertilizer manufacturers. Both groups have already asked a federal appeals court to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating farm-related pollution from phosphorus and other chemicals along the Chesapeake Bay.

 

Phosphorus — and especially phosphorus in fertilizer, which is designed to be easily absorbed by plants — is the source of the algal blooms, some of which are so toxic that they have killed dogs and sickened swimmers. Beyond clotting the lake’s surface, decomposing algae consumes the oxygen in the lake’s deep center each summer, creating a dead zone where deepwater fish that are essential to the lake’s food chain cannot exist. 

 

National and state governments rid the lake of algae in the 1980s, ordering big cuts in phosphorus pollution from factories and sewage plants.  But the blooms returned in the late 1990s as farmers started applying fertilizer on frozen fields in the winter, and spreading or spraying it instead of injecting it into the ground.

 

In 2011, heavy spring rains washed so much phosphorus into the lake that the succeeding summer, algal bloom, at 1,920 square miles, was three times bigger than any previous one.

 

That and other large blooms have crippled tourism in a region where sport fishing and lake recreation are major industries, and they have forced towns and cities to filter and even shut off drinking water. The multibillion-dollar commercial fishing industry could be hit hard. The lake’s growing dead zone has prompted deepwater fish to move upward in search of oxygen, only to run into warmer waters that they find hard to tolerate. Deepwater fish such as perch — a favorite food of one big commercial fish, the walleye — could suffer if the dead zone continues to expand.

 

“The long-term potential impact on fisheries is something we’re really worried about,” said Donald Scavia, a scientist at the University of Michigan’s Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute.

Although the sources of phosphorus range from leaky septic tanks to storm sewers to ordinary rainfall, the biggest contributor is farming, the report indicates — and the biggest farm source is the fields along the Maumee River watershed in Ohio and Indiana.

 

Both the United States and Canada have set targets for reducing Erie’s phosphorus load by 2018, but the commission’s report states that those targets are too low. To return the lake to the mostly algae-free state it enjoyed in the mid-1990s, it states, the Maumee’s phosphorus runoff must be cut by 39 percent.

 

Both governments and private organizations conduct programs that encourage farmers to voluntarily limit fertilizer runoff, but regulatory limits are mostly nonexistent. The commission’s report urges a mix of voluntary and legal programs to achieve large reductions by 2022, with a focus on dissolved reactive phosphorus, the sort used in fertilizers.

 

The report also states that farmers in lakeside states and provinces should prohibit spreading fertilizer on snowy or frozen ground, where it is most likely to be carried away by melting or rains, and should limit applications in the fall.

 

For homeowners, the report recommends that Ontario, Ohio and Pennsylvania ban the sale of phosphorus-based lawn fertilizers except during the first growing season of new lawns, or when soil tests show that the phosphorus content is too low. It also says that Michigan and Ontario should require inspections of septic tanks to ensure they do not leak.

 

A version of this article appears in print on February 27, 2014, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Fertilizer Limits Sought Near Lake Erie. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe

MAKE YOUR LAWN LUSH WITH LIFE, FOR LIFE

Michael Stangl – NTS Certificate in Sustainable Agriculture

January 2014 Michael Stangl owner of Stangl’s Enviro Lawn Care celebrated 33 years in business. Mr. Stangls’ passion is to promote health, wellness and education. Mr.  Stangl celebrated by taking the NTS Certificate in Sustainable Agriculture Course during January 2014 at University of Guelph. This internationally acclaimed four day course featured Graeme Sait and biological Agronomists covering every aspect of microbe, soil and plant nutrition (and protection). These four days featured Mineral Management, Microbe Management, Plant Management, Pest Management & Human Health Management.

NTS – Nutri-Tech Solutions

Graeme Sait is the co-founder of Nutri-Tech Solutions (NTS), a world leader in biological products, programs and education. He is also the author of “Nutrition Rules!” and he heads a large team of agronomists responsible for the popular Soil Therapy™ and Plant Therapy™ programs for which NTS has become renowned. Graeme is a passionate, inspiring speaker who travels the world with his message educating farmers, consultants and governments

Australian company NTS specialises in the relationship between soil health, animal health & human health and they have become a recognised world leader in biological, sustainable farming. Operating since 1994, NTS has developed over 300 products and exported to over 40 countries. They have the largest number of products certified for organic farming of any organisation and offer cutting-edge education to ensure success in sustainable agriculture and horticulture.

Knowledge is Power – Ignorance is Bliss

Knowledge is power, and in any business enterprise, education confers the power to be successful and desirable. There is now a whole new technology available, which can ensure both increased success and improved sustainability in agriculture, golf course, sport field and lawn care. Balance – both mineral and biological – is the keystone of this approach, but there are numerous management tips, tricks and synergies that complete the equation. The bottom line is the fact that this holistic precision approach simply outperforms any conventional approach.

Photosynthesis takes place within individual cell units called chloroplasts which contain the green pigment chlorophyll. Chlorophyll, the green pigment has the ability to combine the energy of the sun with carbon dioxide and water to form a simple six-carbon sugar called glucose for a healthy strong plant the can easily protect itself from disease and insects pressures.

Ignorance is Bliss, to simply say that three nutrients found in Conventional Chemical Fertilizers from the DIY “Big Box Store” to the ag outlet and applied by your lawn care contractor is a fallacy and based on a lack of education. There are more than 17 minerals required for adequate cellular nutrition.  In fact 95% of the plants weight comes from photosynthesis and 5% of the plants weight comes from the soil.

The damage to the global environment continues today by the current unsustainable approach of conventional agriculture, golf course, sport field and lawn care due to the lack of knowledge. This is further compounded by the manufacturer whose marketing dollar and bottom line drive the sales. Increased weeds, insects and disease pressures are the results of this paradigm.

Nitrogen (N) the first of the three elements found in your bag or liquid fertilizer is negatively charged and very mobile. With any one application only 10 to 20% (see “DIRT, the movie”) of the N is used and the remaining goes to contaminate our water systems.  University of California, Berkeley, chemists have found a smoking gun proving that increased fertilizer use over the past 50 years is responsible for a dramatic rise in atmospheric nitrous oxide, which is a major greenhouse gas contributing to global climate change.

Phosphorus (P) the second of the three elements is an acid phosphate fertilizer that delivers just 27% (NTS, Australia) of their phosphate component before locking up in the soil becoming immobile. They also burn off beneficial fungi that comprise the biological recycling of phosphates and acidify the soil to reduce nutrient uptake.

Potassium (K) the third of the three elements is the third most important mineral in relation to photosynthesis. About 90% (NTS, Australia) of the K in soils is insoluble. This source is released by microbial activity and weathering which is destroyed when you have applied these chemical fertilizers.

Conventional Chemical vs Biological

Conventional Chemical is the biggest single contributor of greenhouse gases including 25% of the world’s CO₂, 60% of methane and 80% on nitrous oxide (310 x more potent than CO₂). For example, these chemicals have destroyed the diversity of biology found in our soil foodweb (bacteria, fungus, protozoa, nematodes, arthropods and earthworms) that otherwise would produce nutrient dense healthy food full of life and vitality.

Biological acknowledgement requires you to understand that we are dealing with a “living soil”. What you feed it will determine the outcome. Feed it chemicals, you destroy the soil welcoming weeds, insects, disease and increasing the Greenhouse effect further to the negative. Optimizing soil nutrition is the key to mineralized plants and subsequently animal and human health. With increased organic matter, there will be a decrease in CO₂ from the atmosphere returned to the soil. Organic matter also holds 90% of its own weight in water; providing a precious reserve.

Current Paradigm to Making the Shift

The Current Paradigm would have you believe that a 30-tonne brontosaurus that possessed a mouth the size of a horse’s mouth eat 24/7? Making the Shift with the knowledge provides the entire story. These massive forests that the brontosaurus feed from predated the dinosaurs. These forests had a living soil that worked in balance with nature to provide a dense mineralization to promote nutritionally dense flora to support all life.

In Conclusion

In Conclusion, continuing on with the current paradigm will only further compound the negative impacts to the planet and our own personal health. Making the paradigm shift with cutting-edge technology that Mr. Stangl has put in place via Stangl’s Enviro Lawn Care will take carbon from the atmosphere and return it to the soil as humus. This will increase the health, vigor,and boost water efficiency while reducing weed, pest and disease pressures.

Knowing is half the battle, implementing is the other half. Restoring and activating your soil from years past abuse from Chemical fertilizers, pesticides and mismanagement is the first step. While doing this, your soil will be able to access the 74,000 tonnes of free nitrogen hovering above every hectare.

A healthy planet is a healthy you.

Further info: www.stangls.com or call 905-641-8133

Ratted out: Scientific journal bows to Monsanto over anti-GMO study

William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant whose internationally best-selling books have been translated into thirteen foreign languages.

Get short URL

Published time: December 02, 2013 12:34

AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa

Share on tumblr

Tags
Biology, Conflict, Food, GMO, Globalization, Health, Medicine, Scandal

Rigid criteria exist for a serious scientific journal to accept a peer-reviewed paper and to publish it. As well there exist strict criteria by which such an article can be withdrawn after publication.
The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has apparently decided to violate those procedures, announcing it is retracting a long-term study on the toxic effects of Monsanto Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)—GMO Maize it published a year ago. 
The bizarre reports come only six months after Elsevier created a special new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and filled it with a former Monsanto employee who worked for the giant Monsanto front-organization, the International Life Sciences Institute, which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations. Sound like something wrong with this picture?

Some background

In its November, 2012 issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly, still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.
Seralini submitted his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four-month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such. Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a period of a full two years at a cost of 3 million euro. The study was done in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.
The publication created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry. Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in newspapers around the world.
Seralini’s group studied the effect of a Monsanto GMO maize diet on the rats for much longer than Monsanto had done in their study submitted to the EU European Food Safety Authority for approval. The group conducted its study for the full two-year average lifetime instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto study. The long-term span proved critical. The first tumors only appeared four to seven months into the study. In the industry's earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen, but were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA alike. 
It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.
The later study was also done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO diet study. They tested “also for the first time three doses (rather than two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603 GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.”
Their findings were more than alarming.

AFP Photo / Mychele Daniau

Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From the paper "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," published in Food and Chemical Toxicology
The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died two to three times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in three male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second-most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…”.

Monsanto on defensive 

Monsanto and the related GMO industry immediately went on a war footing to control the potentially fatal damage from the Seralini study. Suddenly, with worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, the EU Commission and its EFSA was under fire as never in their history. How they reacted was worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. They piously announced that they had passed the Seralini study on to their EFSA scientific panel for evaluation.
The Brussels EU scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun from the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009 without first conducting any independent testing. It admitted it had relied on“information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto).” EFSA also admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days. Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, one reason longer-term studied were obviously warranted.

A picture released by the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) shows a combination image of three pictures featuring rats with tumors after they were fed a diet of genetically modified (GMO) maize produced by US chemical giant Monsanto. CRIIGEN researchers examined a two-year study, that shows the long-term toxicity of GMOs and chemical weed killer "Round-up", establishing "alarming" results according to professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. (AFP Photo / Griigen)

EFSA concluded at the time of its initial Monsanto NK603 approval in 2009 that, “data provided [by Monsanto - author] are sufficient and do not raise a safety concern.” The Brussels body added, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that maize NK603 is as safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and derived products are unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and animal health in the context of the intended uses.” Oops!
Now comes this guy Seralini and puts EFSA and the entire regulatory control process for GMO under grave doubt.
The EU Commission was on record stating that no independent non-GMO industry long-term studies were needed on animals to test their safety. The EU guidelines for testing stated, “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US. Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In recent years, biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy, tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet been observed.” 
The ‘up to 90 days’ is the key statement. Seralini’s study only observed serious tumors and other effects after 120 days in their two-year study.

EFSA cover-up

On November 28, 2012, only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine [sic!] previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603.”  Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said “EFSA’s analysis has shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.” 
EFSA argued that Seralini had used the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats and that the statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Séralini study.

Professor of the University of Caen, Gilles-Eric Seralini (2ndR), poses in a laboratory with his team in Caen. (AFP Photo / Charly Triballeau)

At the very minimum, the ‘precautionary principle’ in instances involving even the potential for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious, independent long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the Seralini tests. Refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in the Seralini study, suggested EFSA was trying to cover for the GMO agrichemical lobby at the very least.
Many members of the EFSA GMO review panel had documented ties to Monsanto and the GMO industry, a conflict of interest to put it mildly. Corporate Europe Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the EFSA response, “EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflicts of interest; and it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe's largest biotech industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.” 

New blood at Elsevier

While the official EFSA statement seemed to take pressure off Monsanto, it clearly was not enough so long as the Elsevier journal study could circulate and be cited around the world.
Then, out of the blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release, Elsevier announced that it had created a new position, ‘Associate Editor for Biotechnology’. The person they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who in addition was with the Monsanto pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.
As one critical scientific website posed the obvious ethical sham of hiring Monsanto people to control GMO publications, “Does Monsanto now effectively decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize control of science?” 
Then on November 24, 2013, six months after Goodman took control of GMO issues at the Journal, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reportedly decided to retract the study by the team of Professor Séralini.
The reasons for the extraordinary retraction a full year after publishing are in violation of the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member. According to the guidelines, the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are:
• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error;
• Plagiarism or redundant publication;
• Unethical research.
Séralini’s paper meets none of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter informing the professor of his decision, Hayes concedes that examination of Séralini’s raw data showed no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. 
As Claire Robinson of GM Watch points out, "inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction. Numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any uncertainties.” 
Elsevier, the publisher of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, is one of the giants in worldwide scientific publications. And they are apparently not so rigorous when it comes to making money over scientific principle.
In 2009, Elsevier invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers, Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the ‘Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine’ was simply a PR vehicle for the drug giant Merck.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER IS A NEGATIVE

Stangl’s understands Insects and disease will not go away. Drought and floods will not go away. Extreme heat and cold will not go away and most of all that weeds are your number one concern. Weeds indicate high bacterial and low fungus - unbalance. Number one cause for unbalanced soil and increased weeds is from the use of chemical synthetic fertilizers on your lawn from the past and now.

Weeds like a bacterial soil caused by chemical synthetic fertilizers which stimulates the bacterial side and kills the fungal mass. Coming off of these chemical synthetic fertilizers takes time to get a lawn more fungal, so until that time soil will favor weeds. Stangl’s has introduced a fungal Inoculum as well as included two fungal maintenance applications in the Classic Program to establish fungal mass to balance the fungal to bacterial ratio for the reduction of weeds.

Stangl’s provides the life force to heal and activate soils while due to strong marketing forces paid by advertising bias advice research, if you purchase product/service “A” (which the advertiser will sell or apply for you) the problem will be fixed. Many people then buy the product/service. However one question still needs to be asked; does this fix the problem in the long term or just treat the short term symptoms until next time. Our competitors, big box stores and manufactures continue to increase emphasis on the use of CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER which is indicating that our soil’s natural fertility is declining (due to the fertilizer itself) and increased artificial supplementation is necessary.

CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC FERTILIZER’S NEGATIVE EFFECTS

·         Synthetic Fertilizer is often applied at excessive rates damaging soil microbial populations and the organic matter that sustains them and subsequently plant life.
·         Nitrogen and Phosphorus are recognised as groundwater contaminates because they are mobile and relocate to surface water with erosion and runoff then into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans creating large algae blooms killing marine life, and turn into nitrous oxide greenhouse gas (which accounts for 25% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas) www.dirtthemovie.org
·         Excessive use of Nitrogen can also promote plant disease, insects, increase water use and weeds.

Stangl's understands the relationship of the DIRT to all plant life. Since 1981 Stangl's has provided the best in lawn care and along the way has transformed the typical quick fix lawn care company that used pesticides and granular fertilizers, to a company that focuses on long term results by providing results today without compromising the environment.

Stangl’s provides the healthiest green approach to lawn care. There have been great advancements to obtain Healthy Lush Lawns through Healthy Soils. Please review www.stangls.com for updates and new additions. At Stangl’s we continually update and add to ensure that our lawns are getting the best products and care. With every service call done this year, Stangl’s has come up with solutions and integrated new products for the 2014 Season to advance the soil and results that we are all looking for.

Stangl’s Healthy Soils Program combined with the Classic Program is the Green Link that produces a healthy soil with beneficial bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes for a strong healthy structure that supports the plant life above. It`s time to get rid of your "junk" fertilizer program and step up to Stangl’s for:

·         Balanced soils
·         Energized Microbial Life
·         Massive root system.
·         Increased survival
·         Increased Phosphorus absorption to the detriment of Blue-Green Algae
·         Improves soil structure, prevents erosion
·         Thicker lawns
·         Increased Insect and disease resistance
·         Reduced weeds
·         Drought tolerance
·         Neutralizes soil acidity
·         Stimulates Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria

 

From RODALE INSTITUTE, Soil biologist and researcher Elaine Ingham Ph.D

“Good naturally healthy soil is crucial. Amazingly, the condition of the world’s soil today is so poor that it can be classified as a crisis.

Today we try to reverse poor soil with treatments of various chemical fertilizers. Yet no amount of chemical fertilizers will improve the structure of your soil because soil structure is maintained by the microbes living in the soil. Beneficial, anaerobic organisms build and maintain healthy soil while disease-supporting anaerobic organisms build and support unhealthy soil. In addition, soil structure is hindered by having to recover from numerous applications of synthetic chemicals such as salt-based fertilizers and chemicals.

A healthy vibrant lawn requires a healthy soil with beneficial bacteria, fungi, protozoa and nematodes for a strong healthy structure that supports the plant life above. Soil biologist and researcher Elaine Ingham Ph.D., who studies soil as chief scientist at the renowned Rodale Institute in Kutatown, Pennsylvania, argues that one soil does not fit all. She also disputes soil experts who claim just having soil with the right pH allows you to grow any plant you want. “This is not going to be the case, unless you want to load your soil with inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and all those things that kill the beneficial organisms in that soil,” Dr. Ingham said. For that matter, she continues, “There is no purpose in putting inorganic fertilizer into the soil that (from the start) contains sand, silt, and clay because you have all the mineral nutrients in that material your plants require.” The soil needs the ability to take the nutrients that are present in the soil and convert them into a form available for the plant. Therefore, Dr. Ingham said, there has to be organic matter, food to feed the life in the soil to keep it alive, active, functioning and doing its job.”

 "Water and Air,     
     The two essential fluids on which all life depends,
             have become global garbage cans."

                                                                    Jacques Cousteau

 

Have a Mindful Day!

Stangl’s Enviro Lawn Care

  

Doctor OZ, Nov 5/13 PESTICIDES IN OUR FOOD

What the Food Industry Doesn't Want You to Know

Investigative reporter Elisabeth Leamy and Dr. Michael Hansen join Dr. Oz to debunk the food industry's pesticide cover-up.

FERTILIZER IS A KNOWN CONTAMINANT

U.S. and Canada need to reduce algae blooms in Lake Erie, report says

 

By Clare Clancy, The Canadian Press August 29, 2013

 

 

 

 

Satellite photo from a NASA website show algae blooms on Lake Erie in this Oct. 5, 2011, file photo. A new report says Canada and the U.S. should take urgent steps to crack down on sources of phosphorus runoff blamed for a rash of harmful algae blooms on Lake Erie. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP Photo/NASA, File

Canada and the U.S. should crack down on sources of phosphorus runoff blamed for a rash of harmful algae blooms on Lake Erie, an advisory agency said Thursday.
The International Joint Commission said in a draft report that urgent steps are needed to curb runaway algae — which produce harmful toxins and contribute to oxygen-deprived "dead zones" where fish cannot survive.
The issue prompted both nations to reach their first agreement to improve Great Lakes water quality more than 40 years ago, when some considered Erie ecologically dead.
Tougher standards for municipal and industrial waste treatment produced improvements by reducing the flow into the lake of phosphorus on which algae feeds.
The report's Canadian co-author, Glenn Benoy, said algae blooms had almost disappeared but now there is a recurrence.
"Some of the worst blooms we've seen in the lake happened in the last five to seven years," he said from Ottawa.
In 2011, the largest mass on record formed in the lake's western basin, eventually reaching more than 160 kilometres from Toledo to Cleveland, Ohio.
Benoy — a senior water quality and ecosystem adviser — said there is evidence an algae bloom is starting to spread now, but he doesn't know how severe it will be as blooms tend to peak in the fall.
The report says different sources of phosphorus runoff have emerged — primarily large farms, where manure and other fertilizers are washed into tributary rivers during storms and snowmelt.
They accounted for more than half of the phosphorus that reached the lake in 2011, while one-third came from smaller farms and nearshore communities as well as city sewers.
More intense storms likely caused by climate change are sweeping more nutrients into the lake, the report says. Additionally, unlike decades ago, much of the phosphorus dissolves in water, making it easier for algae to consume.
"The ultimate concern is that there will be some toxicity associated with severe blooms and it's this toxicity that can affect human health, animal health," Benoy said, adding that this is in an extreme scenario.
The report includes 15 key recommendations, including prohibition of nearly all use of phosphorus fertilizers for lawn care and the monitoring of sewage plants and other facilities that discharge into the lake.
It also calls for a cleanup plan developed by the governments of Ontario, Ohio and Michigan.
Benoy said other ecosystems surrounding Lake Erie could be affected.
"It's not confined to the western basin of Lake Erie," he said, adding that blooms have also been found in Lake St. Clair.
He said researchers are looking at a multi-year solution to "turn the phosphorus taps off."
The report sets targets for sharp reductions in phosphorus runoff over three to six years, including a 46 per cent decrease in total phosphorus and a 78 per cent cut in the dissolved type for the lake's central and western basins.
"The idea that we could turn time back and go back to a Lake Erie like it was pre-war or something, that will take centuries," Benoy said, adding that the goal is to have the lake in an environmental condition that is "desirable and acceptable" to the public.
"If nothing is done with the recommendations, well, then we get into a scenario where the likelihood of further blooms continues, the severity, the duration, intensity," he said. "There will be nothing to curtail that."
To reach the targets, the report recommends that governments in both countries should require "best management practices" that reduce the amount of phosphorus applied to fields and slow the flow of water to drainage systems. The report suggests one step would be to ban spreading manure on frozen or snow-covered ground.
Another proposal would link the cost and availability of government-subsidized crop insurance to farmers' willingness to curb phosphorus runoff.
"The idea is that if you're contributing to pollution, you're going to pay more," said Lana Pollack, chairwoman of the commission's U.S. section. "There's really a strong need to change agricultural practices, or else just say you're going to sacrifice Lake Erie."
Pollack said if the governments take action on the report "it will make a big difference."
"What happened in 2011 was such a shock that people realize more of the same is just not tolerable," she said.
_ With files from The Associated Press.

FERTILIZER IS A KNOWN CONTAMINANT