DOCSLIB.ORG

Organic Lawn Care 101 Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Organic Lawn Care 101 Overview Organic Lawn Care 101 Overview Discuss “Organic” Obstacles & Legislation Understanding Fertilizers Pest Control Products: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Developing an Organic Lawn Care Dr. John Stier Program Environmental Turfgrass Extension University of Wisconsin-Madison Obstacles to Organic Why Go Organic? Lawn Care Dislike for pesticides, synthetic fertilizers No clear definition Capture “niche” market Customer desire lacking Environmental concerns Less than perfect lawn quality Water Expense Biota Unproven products Human health Workforce education lacking Food Quality Protection Act 1996 Organic Food Production Organic Food Production Act of 1990 USDA regulated No synthetic chemicals Fee-based certification Exceptions: Copper and Sulfur-based compounds Application and review process Bacterial toxins Recordkeeping required Pheremones Audits Soaps 3 Levels: Dormant/plant oils 100% organic Fish emulsions Organic Vitamins and minerals Federal or state Emerging Pest or Disease Made with organic Program 1 National Organic Program Products www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/NOPhome. Fertilizers html Low analysis (< 20% N) ≤ $10,000 penalty for misusing “organic” Pest control terminology Biostimulants Components (e.g., compost) need to Most from small companies meet NOP standards Prohibits use of GMOs Fertilizer Examples Biostimulants Alfalfa Meal 3-2-2 Gypsum (CaSO4) Aragonite (CaCO3) Kelp Meal Azomite 0-0-2.5, 5% Ca Natural No-P 6-06 Blood & Bone Meal Peanut Meal Seaweed extract, plant hormones, Boron 14.3% Phosphate Rock Calcium 25 Pro-Booster 10-0-0 vitamins, etc. Chilean Nitrate 16-0-0 Vegetable + animal protein + nitrate of soda May have scientific basis (antioxidants) Corn Gluten Meal 10-0-0 Sulfate of Potash 0-0-52 Contains P Marketed for Stress Conditions Sul-Po-Mag Crab Meal 5-2-0.5 Likely small impact-plant production OK Epsom Salt Zinc-granular Feather Meal 12-0-0 Little testing Fish Meal 10-0-0 Lab results > field Organic Pest Control Sources of Alternative Usually small companies Products Products may be: Viruses Good Bacteria Limited efficacy Xanthomonas campestris Contact, non-selective herbicides Ineffective Fungi Illegal Insects 10% bleach/ammonia concoctions Plant products (Fitchburg Star newspaper, 2004) Corn gluten meal Offerings may contain conventional Fungus growing in agar chemistry (e.g., glyphosate) 2 Challenges for Microbial Why Aren’t There More Products Biological Products? Lack of funding Infection requirements Poor government support Free-water Insufficient margin for chemical companies Wounds (bacteria) Difficult to develop Stabilize cells in dry-state Finicky microbes, etc. Sufficient inoculum > 107 cells Lack of researchers UV light degradation Biotechnology Affected by other pesticides Poor track record USDA-APHIS Restrictions Less effective than conventional May harm non-target plants compounds Post Emergent Herbicides Post Emergent Herbicides Burnout Weed & Grass Killer Bioganic Weed & Grass Killer AI: Clove Oil 12% AI: Eugenol 2% Sodium Laurel Sulphate 8% 2-pheneythyl-propionate 2% Inert: Vinegar, Lecithin, Water, Citric Acid, Mineral Oil 80% Corn gluten meal 2% “Made of special blend of vinegar and “10 yrs research” lemon juices” Peer-reviewed? Wilting w/in 20 minutes, dead plants “100% organic” by morning EPA: 25(b) product Hailed by Gardener Broadcaster Not registered in AZ, CO, IN, NE, Ralph Snodsmith, University NM, ND, WA, WI Researchers, and Botanical Gardens Efficacy of Acetic Acid Products % Control (crabgrass Borax for Ground Ivy Control & broadleaf plantain) Ground Ivy (Creeping charlie) 24 hrs 2 wks 9 wks Glechoma hederacea Nature’s Glory (25% aa) 96.0 94.7 48.3 Perennial Burnout (25% aa) 96.7 97.7 53.3 Stoloniferous 5% acetic acid* 93.3 74.7 33.3 Difficult to control Confused w/ henbit 20% acetic acid 98.3 96.0 76.0 Glyphosate 53.3 97.7 96.7 *Concentration in household vinegar Source: www.extension.psu.edu/cnregion/hort/newsletter/hort_may02.htm Univ. Wisconsin, Iowa State Univ. 3 Borax for Ground Ivy Borax for Ground Ivy Control- Control-UW 1995 UW 1995 % Control Application strategies Treatment Rate (lb ai/A) Timing 28 Apr 9 Jun Full bloom (125-150 Growing degree days) Triplet 1 Spring† 33 100 After first frost (1994) Triplet 1 Fall 98 88 Point quadrat evaluations 20-Muleteam 35 oz/gal Spring 8 24 20-Muleteam 35 oz/gal Fall 44 38 LSD (0.05) 15 12 † Spring applications at 125-150 GDD in 1995, fall applications in 1994 Source: Rossi, F., A. Sausen, H. Berg. 1996. Effective timing for postemergence ground ivy control. Wisc. Turf Res. XIII. p. 90-93. Borax for Ground Ivy Control Scythe Herbicide (Dow Agrosciences) Results differ: UW vs. Iowa State Non-selective, contact Ecotype differences AI: Pelargonic & other fatty acids Iowa State had inconsistencies between Similar to Quik II years Rapid membrane destruction Liquid borax >> dry borax Signal Word: Warning Temporary Kentucky bluegrass injury Effective Corn Gluten Meal Corn Gluten Meal Application Accidental discovery 12-20 lb/M Research-based! Early spring Activity Late summer Herbicidal Irrigate Fertility (10% N) 4 Weeds Controlled by Corn Crabgrass Control With Gluten Meal % Control Corn Gluten Meal ----rate (lb/1000 ft2)---- Weed spp. 66 142 199 Rate Corn gluten meal Milorganite 2 -2 Annual bluegrass 60 81 72 (lb/1000 ft ) -----------No. plants dm -------------- Barnyardgrass 31 35 41 0 94 101 Black medic 49 63 63 40 35 93 Buckhorn plantain 80 95 96 79 22 77 Dandelion 75 90 100 119 5 55 Large crabgrass 51 70 82 159 0 41 Smooth crabgrass 51 85 97 13 199 0 21 LSD (0.05) 40 Adapted from: Christians, N.E. 1993. The use of corn gluten meal as a natural preemergence weed Adapted from: Bingaman, B.R., & N.E. Christians. 1995. Greenhouse screening of corn gluten meal control in turf. I.T.S. No.7. R.N. Carrow, N.E. Christians, R.C. Shearman (eds). Intertec Publishing as a natural control product for broadleaf and grass weeds. HortScience 30(6):1256-1259. Corp., Overland Park, KS. p.284-290. Corn Gluten Meal as a Fertilizer Crabgrass Reduction in Field for Kentucky Bluegrass Turf Trials of Corn Gluten Meal on Rate Week Kentucky Bluegrass Treatment lb/M 2 6 12 1988 (4 wks pre-) 1991 (1 wk pre-) -----------Quality-------- Rate (lb/M) % Control Rate (lb/M) % Control Urea0.5678 Urea 1888 00 00 Turf Restore 1.5 6 9 9 40 50 20 58 Turf Restore2699 81 65 40 86 Greens Restore1689 122 80 61 97 Corn Gluten1689 162 95 122 87 Corn Gluten2899 LSD (0.05) 6 5 7 97 203 92 101 79 Adapted from: Christians, N.E. 1993. The use of corn gluten meal as a natural preemergence weed control in turf. I.T.S. No.7. Intertec Publishing Corp., Overland Park, KS. p.284-290. Adapted from: Christians, N.E. 1993. The use of corn gluten meal as a natural preemergence weed control in turf. I.T.S. No.7. Intertec Publishing Corp., Overland Park, KS. p.284-290. Corn Gluten Meal Derivatives Affect Grass Germination Attributes of Corn Gluten Meal In Vitro % Germination Treatment 0.6 lb/M 1.2 lb/M 4.5 lb/M Non-toxic to animals Corn gluten meal+hulls, germ 81 100 0 Used in feed, dog food CGM 100 100 50 Little/no effect on established turf CGM + bacterial proteinase 12 0 0 Biodegradable CG hydrolysate,ion-exchanged 62 12 0 Soluble corn steep liquor solids 75 88 94 Slow-release N source Insoluble CSLS 100 94 0 Not water-soluble LSD (0.05) 12 High rates required Adapted from: Liu, D.L., N.E. Christians, J.T. Garbutt. 1994. Herbicidal activity of hydrolyzed corn gluten meal on three grass species under controlled environments. J. Plant Growth Regul. 5 Corn Gluten Meal for Weed Control Corn Gluten Meal for Weed Control High use rates (12-20 lb/1000 ft2) One to two applications/yr Patent 5,030,268 (1991) Expensive 1993 revision $25-$45 per application/1000 ft2 Broadened claims Pre-emergent only Hydrolyzed form Weed spp. controlled: crabgrass, Dipeptides dandelion, plantain, etc. Current/future research Overseeding limitations Water-soluble spray Fertility effect Developing an Organic Lawn Corn Gluten Meal Sources Care Program Exempt from EPA registration (not hydrolysate form) Rely on the Basics: Feed mills Mowing, fertilizing, irrigation, cultivation, overseeding Dynaweed-Soil Technologies Inc. Choose products wisely Amazing Lawn-Gardens Alive Scythe, corn gluten meal Many others Educate customer Iowa state website: Lawn quality may be different www.iastate.edu/gluten/home.html More frequent applications possible Organic Lawn Care Program Soil Test: pH, nutrient deficiences, soil type How Can You Increase the Demand April: Overseed for Organic Lawn Care? May: Mow using 1/3 rule Corn gluten meal—fert., pre-emergent (early) Ask questions University personnel, extension agents, Post-emergent weed control (Scythe, etc.) chemical companies July: Fertilize, organic source (1 lb N/1000 ft2) (early) Make it an issue with legislators Beware of local P restrictions Support Research & Development, August: Maintain irrigation Extension Overseed (late) WTA/UWEX Turf Field Day September: Fertilize (1 lb N/1000 ft2) (early) Lake Monona Watershed IPM Program Overseed Participate in local issues October/November: Fertilize (1 lb N/1000 ft2) (late) Don’t eschew conventional lawn care Overseed 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Health Risks from Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fertilizer Applied to Soil in Recreation Areas MILWAUKEE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services JUNE 23, 2009 Prepared under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation A health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partners to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION Health Risks from Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fertilizer Applied to Soil in Recreation Areas MILWAUKEE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN Prepared By: Wisconsin Department of Health Services Division of Public Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    1 Final Report Investigation of the Effect of Experimental Milorganite Formulations on Turfgrass Color, Quality and Growth Dr. Doug Soldat University of Wisconsin – Madison, Dept. of Soil Science March 31, 2014 1. Scope and Objective The overall objective of this research was to compare the agronomic and environmental impacts of various experimental Milorganite formulations compared to Milorganite Classic. To accomplish this objective, a field study, a greenhouse study, and various laboratory characterizations were performed. The field study tracked agronomic responses of the Kentucky bluegrass to the various formulations during two growing seasons, while the greenhouse study evaluated the leaching potential of the products. Various characterizations of the fertilizers and soil were performed to evaluate the chemical differences among the fertilizers. 2. Methods and Materials Field Study This research project was conducted at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. The field study site was located at the University’s O.J. Noer Turfgrass Research and Education Facility in Verona, WI. The research was carried out on a Kentucky bluegrass lawn grown on a Batavia silt loam soil. The grass was mowed weekly or as needed at a cutting height of 2.5 inches, and irrigation was applied weekly to replace 80% of reference evapotranspiration (ET) as estimated by an on-site weather station. In July, 2013, regular irrigation was withheld to attempt to identify difference among the treatments in response to drought stress. The study evaluated ten treatments listed in Table 1 which include six (6) different treatments of Milorganite in various compositions of iron and nitrogen (A-F), two (2) treatments with Milorganite and Crystal Green® (G-H), a control treatment with no fertilizer and a treatment with Scotts® Turf Builder® commercial fertilizer.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT for the Fiscal Years Ended December 31, 2019 and 2018
    2019 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT For the Fiscal Years Ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 260 W. Seeboth Street, Milwaukee WI 53204 414-272-5100 Visit our website at www.mmsd.com 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Years Ended December 31, 2019 and 2018 Date of Incorporation Reorganized April 26, 1982 pursuant to Chapter 282, Laws of Wisconsin 1981 Finance Staff - Mickie Pearsall Director of Finance/Treasurer Don Nehmer Deputy Director of Finance RAIN GARDENS MMSD | 1 Table of Contents Reference Reference Exhibit Page Exhibit Page I. Introductory Section Nonoperating Revenue and Expenses, for the fiscal years ended Commission Organization Chart 4 December 31, 2010 through 2019 B-5 41 Commissioners of the MMSD 5 User Charge Revenue by Municipality Within the District, for the fiscal years 2019 Letter from the MMSD Chair 6 ended December 31, 2010 through 2019 B-6 42-43 District Map 7 User Charge Revenue by Municipality Outside the District, for the fiscal years Letter of Transmittal 8-11 ended December 31, 2010 through 2019 B-7 44-45 GFOA Certificate of Achievement 12 User Charge Rates, for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 through 2019 B-8 46-47 II. Financial Section Wastewater Loadings by Customer Class, Independent Auditors’ Report 14-15 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 through 2019 B-9 48-49 Management’s Discussion and Analysis - Required Supplementary Information 16-19
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for the Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida Golf Courses
    Best Managementfor the Practices Enhancement of Environmentalon Quality Florida Golf Courses FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JANUARY 2007 I am pleased to present the new edition of Best Management Practices for the Enhancement of Environmental Quality on Florida Golf Courses. This manual reflects the collaborative efforts of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association, the University of Florida and many private sector partners to develop nonregulatory guidelines for minimizing pollution and conserving Florida’s precious water resources. Water conservation is one of our most crucial environmental issues. By adopting and apply- ing the practices recommended in this guide, industry as well as individuals will help pro- tect our natural resources, minimize the need for future regulations, and continue Florida’s commitment to sound environmental stew- ardship. MICHAEL W. S OLE, SECRETARY Florida Department of Environmental Protection These Best Management Practices were born from the desire of Florida golf course superintendents to demonstrate that environmental stewardship is a responsibility that is taken seriously. The Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association wishes to acknowledge the time, effort, and expertise of the staff of FDEP and other regulatory agencies, the University of Florida–IFAS faculty, and other members of the private and public sector who partnered with us to help develop these voluntary guidelines for enhancing the environment on Florida’s golf courses. There is a reason that wildlife gravitates to golf courses even in urban settings, where they serve as greenbelts. Golf courses present opportunities for many diverse wildlife habitats. By following the practices in this manual, the golf course industry will be able to demonstrate the positive contribu- tions that golf courses make to communities across the state of Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Material Safety Data Sheet Milorganite® 6-2-0 Fertilizer
    Material Safety Data Sheet Milorganite® 6-2-0 Fertilizer Product Name: Milorganite® 6-2-0 Fertilizer Date Prepared: January 2, 1993 Date Revised: October 24, 2005 Section 1: CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY INFORMATION Chemical Name: Fertilizer Synonym(s): Biosolids, Milorganite® is a fertilizer product manufactured from various microbes used to digest sewage sludge. CAS No: 8049-99-8 Manufactured by: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District 260 W. Seeboth Street Milwaukee, WI 53204 Emergency Telephone: 800-304-6204 Non-Emergency Telephone: 414-221-6810 NFPA HAZARD RATINGS: Health (1), Fire (1), Reactivity (0) Ranking system: Least (1) slight (2) moderate (3) high (4) extreme Section 2: COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Chemical Name/Synonym(s) CAS No. Activated Sewage Sludge (biosolids, dried microbes) 86.8 – 90.8% by weight 8049-99-8 Iron chloride* 1-3% Iron (Fe) by weight 7705-08-0 Iron sulfate* 1-3% Iron (Fe) by weight 10028-22-5 *Total Iron (Fe) 4% by weight Water 4-8% by weight 7732-18-5 Calcium Carbonate 1.2% by weight 471-34-1 Polymerization agent(s) <0.01% by weight Varies Fecal coliform <0.22 MPN/g TS NA Trace metals and volatile organics can be detected in quantities less that 1.0%, most less than 0.1%. These components and pathogenic agents are of a low quantity to allow this product to meet US EPA 40CFR Part 503 Class A Exceptional Quality biosolid requirements. (California Only-Proposition 65 Warning:) This product contains detectable quantities of chemicals known cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This notice in no way implies that we have any evidence or experience to indicate that any genuine hazard of cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm results from the normal, proper handling described on our labels and related literature.” ACGIH TLV/OSHA PEL ACGIG Nuisance dust limit of 10mg/M3 (inhalable) and 3mg/M3 (respirable) may apply to this product.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Milorganite® to Temporarily Repel White-Tailed Deer from Food Plots
    Using Milorganite® to temporarily repel w hite-tailed deer from food plots O din L. Stephens1, Michael T. Mengak1, David Osborn1, and Karl V. Miller1 1 Graduate Student, Assistant Professor - Wildlife Specialist, Wildlife Research Coordinator, and P rofessor – Wildlife Management, respectively, D. B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 WSFR - Wildlife Management Series No. 2 March 2005 Abstract When deer populations become locally overabundant, deer browsing of wildlife forage plants during early vegetative growth negatively affects food plot establishment, survival, and productivity. Food plot managers would benefit from a repellent, which provided plants with protection from over-browsing, if it were harmless to people and animals, inexpensive, and easy to apply to group plantings. We tested Milorganite® as a repellent for providing wildlife forage plants with temporary protection from browsing by deer. We planted two 0.5-acre (0.2 ha) plots of soybeans (Glycine max) on five rural properties in northern Georgia and monitored them for 37 days. On each property we established one control (no Milorganite®) and one treatment 240 pounds per acre of Milorganite®) food plot, separated by 15 – 325 yards (15-300 m) of natural, unfertilized vegetation. Although intensity of deer browsing varied by property, a broadcast Milorganite® treatment reduced browsing of soybean plants for at least 37 days. Introduction Food plots are widely used by wildlife managers to increase a property’s value to wildlife. These plantings provide supplemental forage to wildlife during periods when native vegetation is lacking in either abundance or nutritional quality. However, because deer often prefer fertilized food plot plants to naturally available plants, over-browsing can damage food plots before they become sufficiently established.
    [Show full text]
  • Milorganite Classic 6-2-0 (4Fe)
    For Better Results. Milorganite Naturally. Classic 6-2-0 (4Fe) Milorganite helps everything from fairways to greens look their best. PROVEN. After more than 80 years of helping everything from tees to trees get rave reviews, we ought to be. NON-BURNING. Whether you’re caring for golf turf to flower beds, you can put your faith in Milorganite - the natural organic nitrogen SALT INDEX fertilizer proven to work on everything that grows. Since it MATERIAL INDEX contains virtually no chemical salts, there’s no need to worry about POTASSIUM CHLORIDE 116 AMMONIUM NITRATE 109 burning - or the consequences. Please refer to the Salt Index Chart SODIUM NITRATE 100 for additional information. UREA 75 POTASSIUM NITRATE 74 AMMONIUM SULFATE 69 RICH IN IRON. NON-STAINING. For the formation of chlorophyll, iron CALCIUM NITRATE 53 is essential. And that’s exactly what you’ll find in Milorganite - the SULFATE OF POTASH 46 METHYLENE UREA 24 fertilizer containing 4% iron. Unlike the iron salts some fertilizers UREA FORM 10 contain, Milorganite’s iron is organically complexed. That means it IBDU 5 MILORGANITE 2 stays in an available form that’s readily absorbed by your plants. So while it’s priced like inexpensive iron salts, Milorganite iron acts more like expensive, synthetic chelates. That means your plants keep getting the iron they need, regardless of soil pH, without staining walks, brass, concrete or golf shoes. SLOW-RELEASE FORMULA. UNIFORM GROWTH. Milorganite’s slow-release formula provides nitrogen over an 8-12 week period, minimizing the problems of excessive growth, like constant mowing and extra clippings.
    [Show full text]
  • Over-Fertilizing Is a Problem Contributing to Stormwater Pollution in the Clinton River. Without Realizing It, Many Landowners
    Over-fertilizing is a problem contributing to stormwater pollution in the Clinton River. Without realizing it, many landowners are applying fertilizers and pesticides when their lawns don’t even need them! When applying fertilizer, it’s important to know when it is needed and when it is not in order to avoid the excess fertilizer from entering the stormdrains and negatively affecting water quality. It is possible to have a beautiful lawn by fertilizing only two or three times a year, or even not at all. If you find you need to fertilize, you may choose to… Apply twice a year: in late spring (late April or early May) and fall (September or October). OR Apply three times a year: in late spring (Memorial Day), early fall (Labor Day) and late fall (Thanksgiving) Pointers for Pesticide Use Correct watering, mowing and fertilizing habits can reduce many pest problems. But if you do Don’t assume your plants need choose to treat for insects, it is essential that fertilizer. Perform a soil test. You’ll save you know your enemy before you apply pesti- money and reduce the chance of over- cides! If possible, hand-pick the little buggers applying. Michigan State University Ex- off the plants and identify the pest. The im- tension offers easy-to-use soil nutrient portant part is to identify and treat only for the testing boxes, and recommends a soil pests you have, at their most vulnerable test every two or three years. stage. For help identifying the bug that’s been bug- To find out more, check out: ging you, check out the Michigan State Uni- Macomb County http:// versity Pest Diagnostic website: www.macombcountymi.gov/msuextension/ www.pestid.msu.edu/ Oakland County http://www.oakgov.com/msu/ Clinton River Watershed council http:// A general spraying of insecticide is ineffective, www.crwc.org costly and may do more harm than good.
    [Show full text]
  • MILORGANITE SAFETY Trusted for Over 90 Years Your Safety Is an Extremely Important Consideration in the Production of Milorganite
    MILORGANITE SAFETY Trusted for over 90 years Your safety is an extremely important consideration in the production of Milorganite. Milorganite meets the most stringent criteria imposed on any fertilizer product for health, safety and environmental concerns. Milorganite can be used with confidence for all your fertilizing needs, including use on all grass species, trees, shrubs, flowers, and vegetable gardens. U.S. EPA and State Standards Milorganite is intensively analyzed to ensure compliance with all applicable standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and every state in which Milorganite is sold. Metals and PCBs are analyzed daily. As shown by the table, metals concentrations in Milorganite are much less than allowed for an Exceptional Quality product. Metals and Fertilizer Micronutrients Milorganite vs. U.S. EPA Limits The Truth about Metals Metals and U.S. EPA 2015 Heavy metals like cadmium, copper and zinc are Fertilizer Exceptional Milorganite naturally occurring in our everyday environment. Micronutrients Quality Limits Average Several of these metals are actually micronutrients that are needed in small amounts for plants to grow Arsenic 41 mg/kg 3.5 mg/kg and reproduce. The concern with heavy metals in fertilizer is keeping their concentrations under limits Cadmium 39 mg/kg 0.93 mg/kg deemed safe by EPA regulators. Milorganite is the Chromium No Limit 230 mg/kg “gold standard” of biosolid fertilizers, with over 90 years of experience producing a product that is both Copper* 1,500 mg/kg 250 mg/kg safe and effective. Lead 300 mg/kg 44 mg/kg Heat Drying Kills Pathogens Mercury 17 mg/kg 0.48 mg/kg Milorganite is heat-dried in twelve rotary dryers that Molybdenum* 75 mg/kg 11 mg/kg operate between 900⁰F and 1200⁰F.
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage Sludge-Based Fertilizer Products
    INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND TRADE POLICY < FOOD AND HEALTH PROGRAM Sewage Sludge-Based Fertilizer Products The following is a non-exhaustive list of sludge-based fertilizer products available to consumers in one or more parts of the United States. IATP does not recommend home use of sludge-based fertilizer products. For more information see IATP’s Smart Guide on Sludge Use and Food at http://www.healthobservatory.org. Product Generator Description Availability Website AllGro® Synagro Technologies Sewage sludge compos- Information not available www.synagro.com/ser- Inc. (sludge used for ted with wood trimmings vices/allgro.html these products could come from any Synagro- managed facility in the U.S.) Bay State Fertilizer Massachusetts Water Heat-dried sewage New England www.nebiosolids.org/ Resources Authority sludge pellets farmers.html CompostT University Area Joint Sewage sludge compos- Pennsylvania www.uaja.com/compost/ Authority ted with sawdust compost.htm Dillo Dirt™ City of Austin Sewage sludge compos- Austin area www.ci.austin.tx.us/wa- ted with yard waste ter/dillo.htm Granulite® Synagro Technologies Heat-dried sludge pellets Information not available www.synagro.com/ser- Inc. (sludge used for vices/granulite.html these products could come from any Synagro- managed facility in U.S.) GroCo King County, Washington One part sewage sludge King County dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/ composted with three biosolids/compost.htm parts sawdust METROGRO™ Metro Wastewater Recla- Anerobically digested Information not available www.metrowastewater.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Major Components of a New Landfill Gas System of a New Landfill Gas System –
    Integrating Major Components of a New Landfill Gas System – Coordination of Multiple Contracts for Gas Treatment, Pipeline Transmission and Turbine Energy Generation Ralph B. “Rusty” Schroedel, Jr., P.E., BCEE, Brown and Caldwell Michael J. Martin, P.E., BCEE Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Cary J. Solberg, P.E., Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District William Krill, P.E., Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Outline • Introduction • Project Overview • System Description • Program Management Contract • Benefits and Challenges • Conclusions and Recommendations Brown and Caldwell 2 ADVANCED DISPOSAL LFG System Components Dedicated Communication Link EPL Gas Processing Facility Compresses and conditions gas for the pipeline and turbines (JIWRF) EMERALD PARK (JIWRF) Turbine Generators ((EPL) ) (((EPL) )) produce electricity to power JIWRF and waste heat to produce Milorganite New Metering Station measures gas flow and quality exiting pipeline PipelinPipeline transports gas from EPL to JIWRF Raw gas is drawn from collection wells into a vacuum header system Gas flow and quality entering pipeline measured at EPL System Components Owner MMSD EPL Pipeline Turbine Facility Conditioning and Component Metering and Equipment Compression Project New Steel Pipe Station Installation Equipment HDPE Pipe Rehab Design CH2M Hill CDM Smith CDM Smith CDM Smith Cornerstone Consultant OwnerOwner77772urnished2urnished 8nison, E/uipment Solar Turbines NA NA NA M, Tech, C,IC, Supplier3s4 ,enture Prime 2indorff Michels Construction Meade C Smith A 9 Sons Pipeline Contractor Operator ,WM PC ,WM / PC A LFG System Operation • .andfill owned/operated by Advanced isposal • MMS ’s Pipeline operated by ouglas Pipeline • JIWR2 Metering Station and Turbine 2acilities operated by ,eolia Water • MMS and Advanced isposal have 20 year agreement for purchase and sale of .21: • Provides guarantees for .21 production and use.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    2020 Facilities Plan Treatment Report Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Description and Responsibilities of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District..... 1-1 1.3 History of Facilities Planning .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Purpose and Need – 2020 Facilities Plan......................................................................... 1-1 1.5 Watershed Approach to Facilities Planning..................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Planning Objective........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.7 Relationship to the Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update.......................... 1-3 1.8 Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.9 Planning Principles .......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.10 Description of Planning Process ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.11 Treatment Report Organization ....................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2: Description of Treatment
    [Show full text]