Are all organic fertilizers "Green"?

[pattyp]

Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone knew whether all fertilizers labeled as "organic" are "green". I know that traditional inorganic fertilizers are produced using massive amounts of energy obtained by burning petroleum or coal. However, does the label "organic" ensure that a fertilizer was produced through environmentally-friendly methods? If so, does this mean that using such a fertilizer won't contribute to the over-flux of nitrogen that is already being dumped into the environment? Thanks for your input.

Patty

[canadamike]

No, it is impossible. Minerals are mined, and this is one exemple.

As much as I think green thinking is the way of the future, which is a stupid sentence in a way because it was the way yesterday and very very long ago, there is also a limit to this form of thinking, this new religion.

Because for certain people it is one ( and believe me I am not hinting at you or somebody else here ).

We are part of nature too, but it gave us a superior thinking ability and ways to solve problems, using tools and science are part of that.

We also inherited the capacity to be destructive, but, to a certain extent, it is another debate.

I will never blame a farmer because he uses mined stuff or stuff that travelled to produce good organic food. The way I see it, these practices are not part of the problem but of the solution.

Man will ALWAYS leave its imprint one way or the other. I vote yes to the ways that show a strong conscience for life and that are part of a larger plane that helps mentalities evolved, as organic nutrition is.

This planet of ours could be very happy with humans still mining for organic farming if we let go of all the other junk that is part of our daily lives and materialistic society.

Leaving an imprint is no sin. It is our destiny. Junking mother hearth is another thing.

As an exemple, David Suzuki, probably the greatest ( the one with the most impact on ordinary people) voice nature ever had in modern times needs to take the plaNe to send is message, to meet governments, interest groups and citizens all over the world.

He would never have been such a powerful universal voice for a change without this ability to travel fast.

It is only a contradiction in appearance, net results are WAY more important. So if one trip makes a government change environmental laws, create sanctuaries for endangered species, do the math: are we better with this trip, is mother hearth better because of it?

Easy answer for me. and easy answer about organic but not ''so green'' products. If they become part of something bigger that is good for my planet, I vote yes.

And as far as I know they do. Let it be the part of our imprint that we find OK. Which is not saying we shouldn't try to find the best way to ''green'' them, as a society or as individuals.

There is much more than only one debate in that ''one'' question, and I soon hit my english linguistic abilities' limit talking about that.

But one thing is sure, the only way not to leave an imprint for humans is a good bullet between the eyes. I was going to say a knife would be greener but it hurts

[PatrickW]

There's really no such thing as a truly organic fertilizer other than what you might make yourself, for example compost tea or tea made from green plants like nettles or comfrey. While it's true some fertilizer might be necessary from time to time, if you have a well managed organic garden, you don't really need any, so it's almost a contradiction in terms 'organic fertilizer'.

Most fertilizers labelled as organic are industrial by-products, for example bone or blood meal from feedlots, fish emulsion from fishing. Mostly these products are more heavily marketed than they are really useful in the garden, and at best usually just won't harm anything. Homemade compost and nitrogen fixing plants, grown in a proper rotation, are all that most people need.

[potagere]

This is all becoming a bit cyclical.
Compost you make yourself, depending upon what you eat and what you put into the compost bin may also be at least partially composed of "industrial by-products".
Just because something is a "by-product" of an "industrial process" does not make it "anti-" or even "non-"organic. Bone, blood and fish meals, unless they have added "contaminants" are "organic" by definition.
If one has a good, healthy, agricultural loam in their garden or on their farm, it may well be possible that no "supplements" are needed. If, like too many of us, we have inherited marginal or abused soils, relying in "[h]omemade compost and nitrogen fixing plants, grown in a proper rotation" is unlikely to result in productive gardens anytime soon (and certainly not in this old man's viable lifetime!).
While building up the soil in a garden to even minimal levels to support flowers or vegetables, the use of fertilizers, as well as organic supplements such as compost, leafmold, manure, etc. is essential. A failure to use them would result in, well, failure.

[canadamike]

Itotally agree. And why not use these fish leftovers?

You said something important. Most of us do not have the luxury of perfect soil. In fact, here in my part of North America, there is barely any real topsoil on any of the newer housing areas.

I am far from being a fan of ''buying stuff'' if it can be done otherwise.
But I do visit lots of people who want to garden and ask for advice.

One inch of some approximative form of man made top soil, basically sand rendered blackish by mixing in peat moss or black earth, over 3 feet of sand is not fertile. And if you want to feed your family as much as you can, as more and more do, you need something else, as simple as that.

In my new house, what we have is rock covered with a mix of rocky sand/clay mix. One foot of sandy soil on top, then 4 inches of fake top soil. I am lucky to have access to the farm.

[PatrickW]

You're mixing up two concepts here, soil building and fertilizing.

On the subject of soil building, I think we're mostly in agreement. If you inherit poor or neglected soil, you have to do something about it, there's no question. This is generally a time when organic material is needed, not fertilizer. This is the whole point of the worm farming and terra preta discussions here. I also didn't say all fertilizer was bad, and for example when you start a new garden and are dealing with some specific problems, that might certainly be a time I would consider using some myself.

I also didn't say using industrial by-products was bad either. My point was they are promoted for use in the garden because they are surplus to some other process. They are trying to get you to buy them, because they would otherwise be discarded, and they are not necessarily the most useful things for your garden. These sorts of things also often have contaminates you don't necessarily want in your garden. Even if they would otherwise be discarded, they use energy to package them for sale and transport to your garden. If you decide to use them depends on how independent a person you are, and where your ideals stand. They are not for everyone, and using them is not a particularly 'green' option or the cheapest option for that matter.

I stand absolutely firm in what I said before. Once established, for most people in most circumstances, a properly managed garden does not need fertilizer and in the long run will probably do better and be more productive than one with fertilizer. If you're worried about buying 'green fertilizer', the greenest fertilizer is what you don't buy. People lived for centuries without going to the garden center every year and buying a box of fertilizer, their gardens did just fine and they didn't suffer for lack of fertilizer.

Fertilizers are most useful for industrial scale farming, where proper crop rotation is not economical or plants have to be very intensively grown, and pests and diseases are managed with chemicals. I suppose some people garden this way, and if you do you'll certainly need fertilizer.

[potagere]

I take your point of there being two concepts at work here.

On the other hand, at least my garden is much more intensively planted than are the farmers' fields nearby. And I really don't know how long it would take to establish a good quality soil here on our barren mountainside.

[bunkie]

one thought i had when i heard fish was mercury. there are so many warnings about mercury in the seafood these days, and i wonder if the by-product would carry through this element to the compost pile/garden site, if used?

[PatrickW]

Bunkie, good point. The amount of mercury is probably not very high, but why would you want it in your garden unnecessarily?

It's better to use fish only when it's really necessary. Because when you add anything it can become a contaminate or cause imbalances it's one of the reasons why at least in Europe permaculture is becoming popular. It's the idea you should never add or take away anything from your garden or farm, just recycle what's already there. Almost all gardens can be made to work very well in this way.

Even though it's something I've talked about before on my blog, this discussion inspired me to make another post. If anyone is interested in reading more you can find it here:

www.patnsteph.net/weblog/?p=1065

[Alan]

Green is a marketing campaign, nothing more, those who really believe in the concept of sustainability know that HGTV has nothing much to say or teach to them.


Organic meant a lot at one point in time, it unfortunately has been co-opted and parlayed into a marketing point.

Self sufficiency is the key and on soil building and composting I will diverge from the group (for the most part)

Alan Kapuler once questioned how the organic movement had gotten caught up in so much marketing, an analouge of the green revolution, I have to agree with him 100%, it is unnecessary.


I am a firm believer that nearly everything needed to create a fertile garden can be found on ones plot already and if not on ones plot it can be sourced from local and abundant resources without the further addition in the way of purchased amendments.


Composting and returning as much bio-mass as possible to the soil are key here. Weeds, kitchen scraps, animal manures, coffee grounds and more are all good and fairly well balanced sources of nutrients once they have been stabilized via composting, never discount the value of weeds in your garden or leaves as these two groups of carbon and nitrogen are of the highest value to us in soil building, while it may take a few years to build up ones soil and you may see a drop in production if coming from conventional farming inputs or purchased "organic" ones the first year or two, the soil will eventually come to regulate itself. One important thing to remember is that the less cultivation that is done to the soil, the less organic matter you will loose, keeping cultivation at a minimum, adding mulch which will later break down into humous, and maintaining a composting regimine are the three most important things you can do to build soil.

Lime is the only real need of a self sustainable gardener once one locates the resources to create nourishment and so long as compost is balanced with a good carbon to nitrogen ratio and allowed to age and cure one should find less and less use for lime as a neutralizing agent.

Good soil will replentish itself and provide fertility, it just takes time to produce good soil, many years worth of time and much comitment, though it is well worth while and will liberate you from using conventional and "organic" fertilizers.

[davidintx]

I have a question that I have wondered about for some time. Alan, you mentioned that the less cultivation with the soil, the better, and I have read that before. My question is if you keep adding compost to the soil, but not tilling in, you will always be planting in compost, and not touching the original "soil" if you will, whether clay, loam, sand, whatever. Does the plants' roots go down deep enough to extract what fertility there might be from that particular soil level. Or, to put it another way, how important is it for the "soil" that I am putting compost on to be able to contribute to the compost above it. Here in the Dallas area, we have heavy clay soils which are in some ways nutrient rich but are tied up such that the plant can't access it until compost is added to break it up and allow it to contribute it's locked up stores. So, if one keeps adding copious amounts of compost, say twice a year, to the top of the ground, but does not till it in, but just lets it keep building up height, is the plant able to derive any benefit from that lower soil level? Am I making any sense? My guess is that the compost does allow that clay soil to have it nutrients unlocked, even though not tilling in, and the minerals in that clay level either "wicked" upward to be available or the plants' roots reaching down to that layer to derive substanance. Probably a stupid question, but that's something I've always wonder about in the till vs. no-till arguments.

[grunt]

David: Only stupid questions are the unasked ones. Actually, the nutrients in the sub-soil are circulated up through the top levels of soil by both earthworm and microbial action. This happens whether you till or not, but no till would tend to disturb the balance of the soil flora less, and should theoretically be better for the overall soil health.
Deeper rooted plants will also tap into the sub-soil and bring up nutrients. Your soil will end up fresh compost at the top, grading upwards in quality as you descend towards the original soil level, then dropping back to the original quality as it goes past the interface between the original and the additions.
I used the term "theoretically" because it isn't quite as cut and dried as it would seem. There is a lot of disagreement on the subject, and I have to admit that I can and will argue both sides of the debate. Usually I argue with myself, and make me crazy, because I can see both sides.
Last word from me about no till. It is said it is the closest to what nature does, and therefore the best, for soil health. But nature puts back everything that grew out of that particular section of soil, while we take off the artificial crop, and try to replace what we have removed. And the acts of harvesting and fertilizing has an impact on the soil condition through compaction.
I'll quit now, or babble all night.
Cheers

[canadamike]

I might be more precise by saying that I confused fertilizers and soil amendments. I do not use any fertilizer that is marketed appart from foliar feeding kelp powder and some alfalfa meal. I get all the manure, wood shavings and organic matter I can get locally. Sorry if I called these ''fertilizers'', in my mind they are, but I realize the point of the discussion was elsewhere.

I must say I prefer to see the fish leftovers sold as fertilizer and then ending up spread lightly over a whole continent instead of ending up in a dump, where they would become part of a toxic slurry..

[davidintx]

Thanks Grunt for your reply. So, I guess I'm okay when I prepare new beds by merely piling several inches of compost on the ground without tilling in, and then mulching heavily and letting set to "season" for a while before planting. I like to give it several weeks before planting anything. I'm new to this forum, and sure do enjoy and appreciate the collected wisdom of the group.

[silverseeds]

Mar 12, 2009 23:45:38 GMT -5 Alan said:

Green is a marketing campaign, nothing more, those who really believe in the concept of sustainability know that HGTV has nothing much to say or teach to them.


Organic meant a lot at one point in time, it unfortunately has been co-opted and parlayed into a marketing point.

Self sufficiency is the key and on soil building and composting I will diverge from the group (for the most part)

Alan Kapuler once questioned how the organic movement had gotten caught up in so much marketing, an analouge of the green revolution, I have to agree with him 100%, it is unnecessary.


I am a firm believer that nearly everything needed to create a fertile garden can be found on ones plot already and if not on ones plot it can be sourced from local and abundant resources without the further addition in the way of purchased amendments.


Composting and returning as much bio-mass as possible to the soil are key here. Weeds, kitchen scraps, animal manures, coffee grounds and more are all good and fairly well balanced sources of nutrients once they have been stabilized via composting, never discount the value of weeds in your garden or leaves as these two groups of carbon and nitrogen are of the highest value to us in soil building, while it may take a few years to build up ones soil and you may see a drop in production if coming from conventional farming inputs or purchased "organic" ones the first year or two, the soil will eventually come to regulate itself. One important thing to remember is that the less cultivation that is done to the soil, the less organic matter you will loose, keeping cultivation at a minimum, adding mulch which will later break down into humous, and maintaining a composting regimine are the three most important things you can do to build soil.

Lime is the only real need of a self sustainable gardener once one locates the resources to create nourishment and so long as compost is balanced with a good carbon to nitrogen ratio and allowed to age and cure one should find less and less use for lime as a neutralizing agent.

Good soil will replentish itself and provide fertility, it just takes time to produce good soil, many years worth of time and much comitment, though it is well worth while and will liberate you from using conventional and "organic" fertilizers.

I agree completly. Ive also had the idea, we could easily rake leaves,and pine needles, in a sustainable way, and get massive amounts of organic matter to compost as a society with little effort. Wouldnt hurt the forrest to much either as long as they didnt clear large areas, and left a little layer to be mulch for the seedlings the next spring. This is the only way forward as I see it. Long term for a back yard gardener, if you dont already have trees, planting a fast growing tree or bush will eventually give you the good stuff. Im not sure why everyone thinks soil building is so hard really. Perfect soil might be hard, but workable soil with access to simple things. and yes I actually let weeds in parts of my yard get bigger purposefully to ad more organic matter. I also agree self sustainability is the only way to really be sure, these days.