Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
claga_gw

Organic Fertilizers vs. Chemical Fertilizers

claga
12 years ago

Hi,

Wondering about the pro's anc con's of using Organic Fertilizers vs. Chemical Fertilizers.

It's a new hydro-seeded lawn with questionable soil composition.

Thanks

Comments (82)

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    j4c: No harm intended. You just come off a little strong that everybody is fooling themselves. Your first post was this:

    Unless you're going to eat the grass, hit it with synthetic fertilizers,
    herbicides and insecticides. Easy, quick and with good results. Mulch
    mow the grass throughout the year and in the fall, mulch the leaves into
    the grass for some added organic matter. There's also dying plants and
    roots that contribute to organic matter in the soil.

    The bold part is a bit of a wisea** remark and isn't fair to people (not me) who have spent years researching and testing different ideas. Where is your data? On what basis do you claim that synthetics, herbicides and insecticides provide good results? Are you claiming that a sterile soil will provide just as good results as a biologically diverse one? Where's your data? :o) I'd argue common sense shows otherwise if you just look around. How many people do you know who are really happy with their lawn care service?

    I think most of the people active in this forum are acting on a hypothesis rather than theory. You are working on the hypothesis that inorganic fert, herbicides and insecticides along with mulching provides as good a lawn as any other method (though arguable not as safe). Although your certainty in that idea makes you sound like you accept that notion to be a theory, widely tested and accepted. I see no basis for you to present that information as such.

    I changed my way of taking care of the lawn after I had the yard redone a couple of years ago. Results are dramatically different -- no streaking or splotching as caused by inorganic ferts, robust growth for a longer amount of time and on and on. You can go on about whether it is a causal relationship, but you have to go with a working hypothesis and watch and learn as you go. If we find organic material kills grass then I'll change my routine (just a joke - it is widely shown that organic material is good for growth, so maybe more than the basement dwelling level is better).

  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago

    >>> ...then you are in the wrong forum!

    Years ago the mods created another forum in an effort to eliminate these fruitless debates. If you want to mention organics as an alternative, fine, If you keep finding it necessary to proselytize, then take yourself to the Organic Lawn Care Forum. Thanks.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    Proselytize? I though we were having a discussion. Isn't that what these forums are for?

  • owlnsr
    8 years ago

    I think most people on this forum are using both synthetics and organics.

    For me, organics work best in the spring and the summer. However, I use chemicals for pre-emergent purposes.

    In the fall and early winter, it's all about synthetics for me.

  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago

    >>> Proselytize?

    Would you prefer the term "troll"?

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    What's with the attitude, yardtractor? Apparently you have some issues with people advocating organic lawn care that I am not aware of, nor interested in. I see nothing acrimonious about my conversation with j4c. I think we actually agree on more things than we disagree about. Just don't read this particular thread if it bothers you.

  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    It is not about organic lawn care, per se. J4c11 said all that needs to be said on that discussion. If one wants a very nice lawn, one of the the best in the city, then synthetics are an effective, easy, and inexpensive route. If your lawn is your life, then look into alternative methods like organic fertilizers, composting, etc. The Organic Lawn Care forum is for those discussions. It's getting old that anytime someone promotes synthetic or mechanical practices, people start to engage them in an organic "discussion." Unlike some here, many people don't want to make lawn care their life. Most have no interest in chasing rainbows. They just want a nice lawn with the least effort for the 5-10 years or so that they are going to own their lawn.

    Mindlessly repeating organic dogma, may not be proselytizing, in itself, but the intent is to convert. Invite them to the Organic Lawn Care forum and take it there.

    An internet troll is a person who posts for the purpose to create controversy.

    >>> 50 lb bag of Oceangro (basically milorganite) for $7.99

    40 lb bag of anything from Scotts for $30 to $50.

    How is that less expensive?

    Really? Seriously?

    J4c11 already politely explained the, uh, "error" in that argument. As you have a background in chemical engineering, I'll assume that the "error" wasn't due to mental capacity. The only other reason must be to incite an argument; hence, trolling. You've done this before. Re-read this thread and see what you have actually brought forth to the discussion. Eliminate all "morph says..." and "morph's lawn..." Not much is there?

    I'll read the forums that I wish, thank you.

    J4c11, excellent posts btw.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    yard: You do realize the title of this thread is: "Organic Fertilizers vs. Chemical Fertilizers," right? Since when is "just drop inorganics and be done with it." the last word on the subject in a thread that specifically asks for the pros and cons for each? I didn't know this thread was 4 years old, but that doesn't really matter. Somebody resurrected it.

    I had no ulterior motives when I showed the relative cost of organic vs inorganic bag costs. I knew the application rates were different and that the costs were roughly comparable. That was the point I tried to make, but didn't proof-read my post carefully enough. However, how is it fair to use urea for cost comparison? You can't even buy that at Home Depot last I checked. I don't pretend to be an expert on urea, but what is easy about using it? From what I've seen it is very potent and can do serious damage if you don't know what you are doing.

    I'm also not sure why using organic fert is more time consuming. 1 app in spring, 1 in August, 1 in September and you're done. What's so hard about that?

    Also, where's your snarky remark to j4c about his, uhh, "error" when he claimed to put 350 lbs of clippings and leaves on his lawn, thereby rendering organic applications negligible, or do we have to go over the math again?

    Lastly, I think the real reason for your comments is that there is bad blood between you and morpheus. I'm in the middle of that because I referenced him a couple of times.

    Yard - I have no quarrel with you even though you say I have a history of trolling. I've learned a lot of neat things I didn't know before, and they are paying off in a lawn that I cultivate as a hobby. Maybe some of those ideas are important and some may turn out not to be. We should all be learning. If I come off as proselytizing then it is just a little enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with that. If I'm angering people then I don't intend to and I apologize. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think j4c took our back and forth as a discussion/debate and not an argument.

  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    >>>yard: You do realize the title of this
    thread is: "Organic Fertilizers vs. Chemical Fertilizers," right? Since
    when is "just drop inorganics and be done with it." the last word on
    the subject in a thread that specifically asks for the pros and cons for
    each? I didn't know this thread was 4 years old, but that doesn't
    really matter. Somebody resurrected it.

    Point taken. But my point/complaint that anytime synthetic/mechanical techniques are suggested they are being countered in nearly every thread with organic dogma is also valid. Fine, here's an organic alternative, just leave it at that without the "discussion" as I've been around long enough to know there are no conclusive studies on the issue. It just evolves into a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument. The intent of creating the "Organic " forum was to separate the synthetic people and the organic folks. It was assumed that THIS would be basically the traditional (synthetic) forum. I'm sorry that no one visits the organic forum and you folks need to come here out of loneliness. You organic folks have run off everyone else. I guess obnoxious equates: winner.

    >>> I had no ulterior motives when I showed the relative cost of organic
    vs inorganic bag costs. I knew the application rates were different and
    that the costs were roughly comparable. That was the point I tried to
    make, but didn't proof-read my post carefully enough...

    Still not following. Let's simplify. If the object is N fertilization then the bag with more pounds of N per lb. /cost is the better buy. I can't fix foolish, but if people want to buy from a big box like Lowes, around here, a 36 lb bag of Milorganite 5% N is $12.97. so that's 1# N (organic) for $7.20. A 17# bag of Pennington 29% N costs $11.97. That's 1# of N (synthetic) for $2.43. Kapish? If you are industrious you can find a feed and seed store within 10 miles of your home then you can find better deals on both.

    >>>...However, how is
    it fair to use urea for cost comparison? You can't even buy that at
    Home Depot last I checked. I don't pretend to be an expert on urea, but
    what is easy about using it? From what I've seen it is very potent and
    can do serious damage if you don't know what you are doing.

    Fair? lol. I use nothing but urea, triple, and the occasional Milo (for the iron) All you need to do is locate and call a feed and seed or many garden centers. I've never had a burn and I've screwed up on occasion. It's not hard to apply fertilizer, as you once said, "it's not rocket science."

    >>>Also, where's your snarky remark to j4c about his, uhh, "error" when
    he claimed to put 350 lbs of clippings and leaves on his lawn, thereby
    rendering organic applications negligible, or do we have to go over the
    math again?

    J4c11 did not mention whether his calculation included water content or not. Actual dry organic content weight would depend on the amount of leaves he is mulching and the amount of clippings he is mulching per week. Clippings would depend on growth rate, What's the amount of organic material needed to maintain a healthy microbe-fungi-worm level? What is the minimum level? Is there a maximum level? It takes, at a minimum, tens of years to create humas and get its advantages. Otherwise, organic mater pretty much only contributes to tilth and water retention. What are those requirements? Thatch occurs because the surface organic matter exceeds the ability of nature to break it down. What is that threshold? If you fertilize organically are you contributing to the thatch by exceeding the lawn's ability to decompose organic matter? Let's smoke a joint and contemplate belly buttons because, as far as I know, those answers aren't available.

    >>>Lastly, I think the real reason for your comments is that there is
    bad blood between you and morpheus. I'm in the middle of that because I
    referenced him a couple of times.

    There is no bad blood, at least on my part. Morph's soil reads are right on when it comes to optimum K, P and PH adjustment. the rest is a bit OC. Sometimes, especially with mechanical processes, and when he delves into opinion, I think he is FOS, and I'm confident it's mutual. Remember, when comparing his lawn to the ideal, his applications of amendments are not measured in pounds, but in tons. Morph is not your average homeowner. That's one reason why I say take it to the Organic forum.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    yard: couple of points. Let me go over the fertilizer situation again. I don't know where you got your Pennington figures. I can't find it online except for a bag that goes for $22 by some online company. The average homeowner is going to use fertilizer from Home Depot at bag rate, not 1 lb N/Ksf. If you do the math the way the average guy is going to use it, by the stated s.f. on the bag, then milo is about $5/ksf whereas the broad range of Scott's products are in the $4/ksf range. Nobody uses milorganite at 1 lb/ksf. anyway, OK? Can we at least agree on that?

    Also, I found it amusing (OK that's bad of me) that when I was looking at the price of a bag of Scott's summerguard, literally 4 out of the first 6 reviews said the product was horrible and almost killed their lawn, leaving brown and yellow patches (to varying degrees). Scott's had to post an apology for any problems encountered. I didn't bother going to pages 2 through 6. I've never seen such a review with milorganite. Is that worth an extra $5 on a 5000 sf lawn?

    Using urea as an example to compare organic vs inorganic cost isn't fair because nobody in suburbia uses urea. The range of Scott's products is a "fair" comparison.

    The 250 lb of clippings is fresh grass weight, not dry weight. It's not hard to find if you look it up. One source I found quoted about 200 lb fresh clippings. Feel free to excoriate j4c for that outrageous transgression. :o)

    Morph is not your average home owner, but so what? His enthusiasm and results are inspirational for a lot of people who want a great lawn. Some people come here not realizing what really goes into lawn care and are inspired to learn more. Why just assume a guy wants a quick "drop this and be done with it" answer?

    Overall I think you are hypersensitive because of past history that I am unaware of. You might consider that not everybody who is enthusiastic is looking for a fight like whatever happened to create the organic forum.

    I have found your contributions useful as well. Just dial it down a notch, please. Your point about going overboard is well taken and I will be mindful of that.

  • j4c11
    8 years ago

    I would actually like to tell you about my lawn care routine. I apply 4-5 lb of nitrogen per thousand sq. ft., most of it in the fall, water deep and infrequent, mulch mow the grass and leaves when the fall comes. I have trees around the property and get plenty of leaves.

    A few years ago, I have learned about the secret to a beautiful, healthy lawn: every day I do a river dance on the perimeter of the property. This works by sending vibrations into the soil that stimulate root growth, loosen soil, and even attracting beneficial bugs to my lawn. I was told this secret by a golf course super with 40 years of experience under his belt - he's got the best lawn I have ever seen. It's something that takes years to see results, but I have been impressed so far:

    - My lawn is right now still lush and green while my neighbor's lawn is dead.

    - I have never had any issues with fungal disease in my lawn.

    - My wife found some worms in the lawn the other day that I had never seen before I started doing this.

    - My dog takes a poop and in a couple of weeks it just vanishes. I have no urine burn spots.

    - It's a safe procedure - you can't over-riverdance.

    - Keeps me in shape too , so it's got huge health benefits for the owner as well.

    I've had people question this, but none of them have been able to provide any kind of evidence that my method doesn't work. Plus it's harmless and safe, and common sense shows otherwise - just look at my results. I have had robust grass growth for years, and not one blade of grass has died because of it. When someone proves to me that it is harming the grass I will stop. I can only recommend it to everyone.

    P.S. : My neighbor sprays a gallon of blessed water per thousand sq ft twice a year. His lawn is really nice. He's a minister though so he's got an unlimited supply.




  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    j4c: If I may inquire - do you have a background in science?

  • j4c11
    8 years ago

    Computer science. I'm a software developer in my day to day life.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    OK, that could make some sense. You are a bit rigid in your thinking (no offense intended, it's not always a bad thing). I thought that might have something to do with your occupation, and software development seems to support that notion. On the other hand, morpheus, I think, is also in software and he has a very different approach from you. Are you young?

  • j4c11
    8 years ago

    No offense taken, your statement is correct, I am rigid and structured in my thinking. It's not that my work has influenced my personality, my personality has influenced my choice of work.

    I will accept any approach that relies on verifiable evidence and sound logic to reach a conclusion. I do not make leaps of faith.

    I guess it depends on what you mean by young. I'm in my 30s.

  • dchall_san_antonio
    8 years ago

    First I'd like to say that your restraint on this topic is admirable. I can't tell you how many people have left this forum because of the organic debates of the early 2000s. Passions were high on both sides and seemed to infect every topic no matter how tangential this argument was. People left in droves.

    Message from the proverb police: The proof is NOT "in the pudding." The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Get your proverbs right or we'll have to start proverb wars in the lawn forum. Since both sides have erred in this proverb, I'm tossing out everything both y'all have said. You can redeem yourselves in other topics.

    Message from history: When I first started in this forum in about 2002, the only method of organic gardening was to use compost a la Rodale. Nobody really seemed to know much about it, but they talked a lot about it. They knew about greens and browns and they knew about carbon and nitrogen, but as soon as you asked what greens and browns and carbon and nitrogen were, they fell completely apart. They could not tell you why lettuce was a brown and coffee grounds was a green. They had absolutely no idea they were talking about protein and carbohydrates. Commercial compost was ridiculously expensive for most people. In my area the cost was $70 per cubic yard delivered. Back then the few lawn users used it at a dangerous rate of 2 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet, so it cost me $140 per 1,000 square feet. In my experiments it didn't seem to do anything. As for using organic fertilizers, those, too were far too expensive to use on a lawn. Commercially bagged organic fertilizers were the great unknown. They were sold in small bags for use on veggie or rose gardens. And nobody seemed to care what was in them or why they might work. At least nobody in the forums cared. I cared and started reading. The best read I found was Dr Elaine Ingham's article called, "The Soil Biology Primer," found on the USDA website. In that article I learned about the complex food chain she dubbed, "The Soil Food Web," where billions of microbes feed on each other and each others' byproducts. I learned that when the microbes were well fed, a balance would be reached among the beneficial and pathogenic microbes where the pathogens were suppressed by the beneficials. An imbalance in the microbes could result in disease in the soil and on plants. I also learned that the microbes eat real food like other animals. They need protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes to thrive. It was fairly obvious that the microbes needed food and not salty chemicals to create a healthy soil. I also learned that recent studies had revealed that instead of there being 50 or so species of microbes in the soil, there were more like 35,000 species. Suddenly the concept of soil microbes creating plant food as a byproduct of their life in the food web was not such a far stretch of the imagination. Now it was making sense why the commercially bagged organic fertilizers worked and why compost did not. Organic fertilizers have food in them. Compost started out with food but it had been depleted in the pile and left to dissipate or concentrate into humic substances. Rather than pay full price for commercially bagged organic fertilizers, I tried using corn meal (costing $3 per bag back then). It worked fine. My lawn had been a lot of trouble with the chemical fertilizers not working at all. The first application of corn meal seemed to fix everything. After 10 years of trying I finally had good color and much improved density. I like to use the following picture to illustrate the effect of organic fertilizer. This was not my lawn. This picture was submitted to this forum in 2011 by mrmumbles to demonstrate the effect of alfalfa pellets on his zoysia lawn. He applied the pellets in the middle of May and took the picture in the middle of June.

    When you fertilize an entire lawn you don't have the control grass in your experiment. Mrmumbles had the control all around his little test plot. I don't know how to quantify that except to say it looks a hell of a lot better than the unfertilized area. Would chemical fertilizer do the same thing? Almost always, yes, and faster. Does my garage have a chemical stink to it? Not at all. On the other hand, do mice and rats get into my fertilizers? Yes, they do, so I keep it in a sealed Rubbermaid bin. Do I EVER worry about the health risks of corn or alfalfa or do I have to even think about how long before I can let my pets and children play on the grass? Never once. Maybe none of this bothers you, but it bothered me until I changed to organics. I think it bothers a lot of people, so that's why I mention organics seemingly at random in my replies to people asking questions here. I think they are uninformed that there is an inexpensive (or at least comparable) organic alternative to chemical fertilizer. Some try it and are pleasantly surprised. Some don't. Whatever. I can't come through the screen and choke them until they comply.

    I don't think any amount of reading or rehashing of personal experiences is going to convince anyone to change their mind about the effectiveness of organic fertilizer for their situation. If you don't want to try it, you can sit back and never learn what it could do for you. I like it because I don't have to think about what I'm doing. I load up a 2-pound canister with alfalfa pellets, scatter them over about 100 square feet, and repeat until I'm out of yard. If I make a mistake, no biggie. It still works. If it rains the next day or week, no biggie. Once the food is decomposed, it lives in the soil with the microbes. They don't wash away like salty chemicals can.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    j4c: Now that I just turned 51 I can call you young and stupid. (just kidding, but not totally). Nobody here asks you to make leaps of faith. Having said that, however, sometimes it is necessary to go on an educated hunch based on experience. I don't know about computer science so much, but in real world engineering and problem solving, you often do not have all the information you would like to have if you were solving a problem in a text book, yet you have to make a decision and move forward for better or worse. If you need everything proven out before forming some opinions and moving forward then you risk becoming paralyzed. (Plus, a lot of information you demand is out there. You have to do a little research).

    Back to lawn care. Some things are easy and don't require an NSF grant to perform a study. Yes, there are larger and more worms in my lawn than there used to be because I am putting stuff in the ground that we KNOW worms eat and that makes them grow. It is not a great stretch to make the giant leap to conclude that putting worm food in my lawn attracted more worms and made them bigger and happy. It had nothing to do with river dancing, it was the worm food!

    I'm glad Dennis posted that picture of the grass above because I was going to ask him to post it. Do you believe that mrmumbles put alfalfa on that spot and that is the result of the alfalfa, or do you believe this is another example of spurious correlation? Or maybe he didn't really put alfalfa there because there was no witness? :)

    Anyway, I didn't intend to make this a novel. As I like to say, we're talking about grass, not splitting the atom.

  • j4c11
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    @dchall_san_antonio

    The best read I found was Dr Elaine Ingham's article called, "The Soil Biology Primer," found on the USDA website.

    Thank you I will give that a read.

    I don't know how to quantify that except to say it looks a hell of a lot better than the unfertilized area. Would chemical fertilizer do the same thing? Almost always, yes, and faster.

    No contest here. Yes, there's nitrogen in the pellets, and it did the job. Would a chemical fertilizer accomplish the same thing faster and with less effort(across a larger surface)? Yes. The point I've trying to make all along.

    @danielj_2009(6b)

    Now that I just turned 51 I can call you young and stupid. (just kidding, but not totally).

    You know, better than being old and stupid, at least I have time to rectify :-)

    Do you believe that mrmumbles put alfalfa on that spot and that is the result of the alfalfa, or do you believe this is another example of spurious correlation?

    Like I said (a few times now) I do not dispute the fact that alfalfa has nitrogen in it. As said above, synthetics do the same thing:

    - faster,

    - cheaper (Milorganite is $13/36 lbs bag at my local Home Depot), and

    - with less effort (less stuff to spread).

    Safety is mentioned as an issue, but I don't see how it could be dangerous, seems like a bunch of FUD. Once you spread those small fertilizer pellets they're impossible to consume or pick up back out of the lawn. On the other hand, put your dog next to some Milorganite and see what happens. I put down urea (yes, there's people that use it) as winterizer today, let my dog go out and play in the grass, there's no issue, never have had an issue.

    Since we're talking about proofs and puddings, here's my 100% synthetics fed, transition zone, no irrigation system lawn(part of it). 50% Speedway TTTF, 50% Spitfire HBG.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    jc4: Keep on river dancing, it is doing wonders for your beautiful lawn!

    Just to clarify one point. I wasn't saying that there were any potential health risks related to synthetic fertilizers. I was referring to the idea that a lot of landscapers use pesticides and herbicides as preventive measures, dropping them even though there is no call for them. I think it perfectly reasonable that some people are concerned about these chemicals, even though they are deemed safe.

    dchall: pudding, eating, whatever. I might be getting old but I'm not ancient yet!

  • j4c11
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    @danielj_2009(6b)

    You have to understand, the realities of lawn care are different in every area. Lawn care in NJ is different than lawn care in the transition zone, because of mother nature. Try to go without applying pre-emergent and post-emergent here in NC and your lawn will get wiped out by crabgrass, spurge and 100 other weeds in the summer when the grass goes dormant (ask me how I know). While in NJ you can keep your lawn dense and green in 85 degree summer temps, it's nearly impossible to do the same in NC where it's 95+ days , 80 degrees at night, 80% humidity for weeks at a time. The opportunity for herbicide free lawn care just doesn't exist here - it may be something you can easily accomplish in your area. That may be another shortcoming of organic lawn care programs, little flexibility to adapt to local conditions (once you put down herbicides it's no longer organic).

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    j4c: I'm not an organic lawn care nut. yardtractor came into the conversation and stirred up a bunch of stuff from his past...whatever. It sounds like you water infrequently (right?) and mow high, and know what you are doing. Curious, though, have you had any soil samples analyzed? Logan seems to be the one of choice around this forum. I'm curious what your organic % is, among other things. Dchall is the first to say that we all learn from each other, and over time good practices can be identified.

    Thanks!

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    >>I'm not an organic lawn care nut.

    Neither am I. My pre-emergent goes down yearly. So does my anti-grub. I have issues with both P. annua and Japanese beetles. As noted, just under quarter of my grass' nitrogen was synthetic this year. It's gone as low as 3% synthetic, but that was an exceptional year in and of itself.

    About half the nitrogen was synthetic in the garden where my demands pass extraordinary and head right into ridiculous.

    The either/or dichotomy is false, and only includes the black and white extremes of a range that has a vast amount of gray in it.

    In my case, I define myself as IPM--Integrated Pest Management. For me, that leans as organic as I can make it, but if a problem arises where the solution involves Creative Chemistry, so be it. Even so, I'll choose the least intrusive, least toxic, and fastest (harmlessly) degrading chemical that will get the job done.

    The Organic forum is very nice, I'm sure, but they also think a little urea is an ecological sin and that pre-emergent other than CGM is an affront to Mother Nature. You're either pure white or the devil himself. It's no place for a balanced philosophy, and I prefer a little gray just to give myself some options when necessary.

  • owlnsr
    8 years ago

    I would like to point out that the organic forum is pretty dead. The folks who seem to think that one application of Weed B Gon results in a lifeless lawn seem to have a pretty lifeless forum. There is a reason that most people are in this forum and not the organic forum.

  • dchall_san_antonio
    8 years ago

    I'm all for IPM as long as you don't listen to 99% of the IPM people who give up on organics for lack of doing any research. They will spray a chemical insecticide on caterpillars when there is bacillus thurengienses (BT Worm Killer) available anywhere. BT does not kill on contact, but it does stop caterpillars from feeding on contact. To me that's the effect I was hoping for.

    Beautiful lawn j4.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    I tend to ignore the caterpillars in reasonable numbers and enjoy the resulting moths or butterflies later. :-)

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    Here is j4c (green shirt in the center) about to aerate his lawn with a few friends from the neighborhood:

  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    j4c: I'm not an organic lawn care nut. yardtractor came into the
    conversation and stirred up a bunch of stuff from his past...whatever.

    Don't blame me if you come off appearing to be a nut or whatever. Yes. I "stirred up a bunch of stuff" from my past. The RECENT PAST...your posts. This is the one that stirred me up/set me off:

    ...Where is your data? On what basis do you claim that synthetics,
    herbicides and insecticides provide good results? ...Where's your data? :o) I'd argue common sense shows
    otherwise if you just look around.

    I think most of the people active in this forum are acting on a
    hypothesis rather than theory. You are working on the hypothesis that
    inorganic fert, herbicides and insecticides along with mulching provides
    as good a lawn as any other method (though arguable not as safe).
    Although your certainty in that idea makes you sound like you accept
    that notion to be a theory, widely tested and accepted. I see no basis
    for you to present that information as such.

    This from the guy whose argument, supporting data and cited authorities consists of:

    50 lb bag of Oceangro (basically milorganite) for $7.99

    40 lb bag of anything from Scotts for $30 to $50.

    How is that less expensive?

    You did clear this up in the exchange with me:

    The average homeowner is going to use fertilizer from Home Depot at bag
    rate, not 1 lb N/Ksf. If you do the math the way the average guy is
    going to use it, by the stated s.f. on the bag, then milo is about
    $5/ksf whereas the broad range of Scott's products are in the $4/ksf
    range.

    (Now I understand the new math...5 is less than 4.)

    Nobody uses milorganite at 1 lb/ksf. anyway, OK? Can we at
    least agree on that?

    (Believe me when I tell you that EVERYone who applies it at bag rate is applying 1# of N equivalent per k.)

    ... It seems obvious that whatever treatment encourages this biology would
    naturally create a healthier, more disease, thatch, etc. resistant lawn.
    Where's the controversy in that?

    (Obvious, of course...and no data?)

    Oh, here's the data:

    I don't have enough years under my belt with lawn care to say
    definitively whether pure inorganic is just as good or not. In the last
    couple of years I've educated myself and put these ideas into practice
    and doing nothing but inorganic doesn't sound like it will provide as
    healthy a lawn.

    and

    Soil tests show % organic matter. morpheus says 2 to 3% is borderline
    problem while 6% is good and 8% is great (I think his is 14%, BTW). If
    you ask him why 2 to 3% could be a problem I'm pretty sure he has the
    studies to back that up. Since I started with organic feedings my
    organic % has gone way up.

    An aside: (Now you have morph carrying your water. Aren't you the guy who said "The 250 lb of clippings is fresh grass weight, not dry weight. It's not hard to find if you look it up."?)

    and

    Look at morpheus' lawn. He had outrageous levels of organic content
    and his lawn is/was a beast. Dog poop, urine, whatever just disappears.
    He had a trash can size burn/damaged area of turf and it filled in
    completely within about 3 months.

    Sorry to be interjecting into the data points and cited authorities again but another aside: (As I said before, morph's lawn should not be use as the standard. For instance ask him what is the most milo he has ever used in a season. You do know milo contains urea, right? And the fill-in, that has more to do with KBG than organics. How much fill-in do you think he'd have with pure fescue or rye?)

    and then finally:

    Grass blades are approximately 80% water as I believe are leaves.
    That turns 350 lbs of fresh organic matter into about 70 lb per Ksf
    useable. Let's say I add milorganite 4x per year at 15 lb/ksf each, dry
    corn meal once at 10 lb/ksf and maybe 1 app of dry alfalfa in the fall
    at 20 lb/ksf. That's 90 lb/ksf in addition to the 70 you estimated
    (don't know the water % in corn meal or alfalfa or milo for that matter,
    so let's say 70 lb/ksf instead of 90).

    Either way you go, the proof is in the pudding. What do your soil
    tests show? If your organic content is good from clippings and leaves
    alone, then as long as your minerals are good and you are mowing and
    watering properly, then what more could you want?

    Let's repeat that.

    ...then what more could you want?

    Exactly. AND what more would you need? If clippings and leaves or whatever (you both forgot to take into account the 1/3-1/2 of root mass that sloughs off annually) is sufficient to produce an attractive, healthy lawn, you don't need more...as in additional organics.

    That's enough I think. I'll stop now.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    Yard: I've given you every opportunity to play nice in the sandbox, but your last post confirms that you are a tool. You continually miss the context of things being said and the spirit in which I said them. Of course this includes the context of my statement that "set you off." I'm tired of explaining things to you only to find later that it went in one ear and out the other. Send j4c a private message and maybe he'll explain it to you.

    I didn't read the second half of you post once I realized that you aren't following along.

    Please stop badgering me and ruining perfectly pleasant conversations or I will contact the moderators.


  • yardtractor1
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    First of all, you're the one who felt the need to make the superfluous comment about me.

    Second, if you are going to be a vociferous proponent of organics, expect to have your statements and arguments challenged. As you say, It's what happens on forums. You really should visit the Organic Lawn Care Forum. You'll learn that dandelions are a sign that the lawn needs aerating. You may feel more comfortable there and I promise never to post there.

    Third, I don't believe there are any moderators as they have never responded to any of my attempts at contact. However, if you get one to respond, I'd be interested to see what they have to say about the guidelines for the Lawn Care and Organic Lawn Care Forums and I'm sure they'd enjoy your asking j4c his age and calling him young and stupid (just kidding, but not totally). The River Dance photo is a nice touch. Do get a moderator.

  • j4c11
    8 years ago

    Here's danielj_2009 and his friends about the fertilize the lawn:


  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    j4c: HA!! I actually busted out a laugh on that one. I don't have grey hair, though.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    Yard: We all understand that your reading comprehension is lacking, you don't have to keep proving it. You are quite good at clipping and pasting, though (gold star for that). What happened to all the stuff you posted and then deleted? My inbox shows the following:

    yardtractor1 said:
    Got to thinking. You've really got my dander up. I insist that you
    contact a moderator. I want them to see these posts. I'll see if I can
    get their at...

    and

    yardtractor1 said: I save them sop they don't get accidentally deleted.
    danielj_2009(6b)
    j4c: If I may inquire - do you have a background in science?


    Please stop talking to me.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    >>j4c: HA!! I actually busted out a laugh on that one. I don't have grey hair, though.

    Nor I, although I'm wondering if corn cobs would decay in a decent amount of time and whether anybody's chemically analyzed them to see what they contain. :-)

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    In this case they contain humor!

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    ...Does humor supply the necessary amount of any element to the lawn? I mean, I know a laugh a day is supposed to be good for you, but I've never seen my lawn do much more than chortle occasionally. Usually at really lowbrow humor.

  • reeljake
    8 years ago

    Ok kids, what the heck happened in here?! Who started it?

  • owlnsr
    8 years ago
    last modified: 8 years ago

    Someone bust the organic weed killer out! There are some broadleaf weeds in the lawn. We can't have our Frontline coated pets exposed to chemicals!

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    morpheus says: ...Does humor supply the necessary amount of any element to the lawn? I
    mean, I know a laugh a day is supposed to be good for you, but I've
    never seen my lawn do much more than chortle occasionally. Usually at
    really lowbrow humor.

    If your lawn is a little melancholy I think you need to add more leaves in the fall. I hear they turn into something humorous... or something like that. As far as lowbrow, well, I can't help you there. That's a matter of upbringing, and as we all know the proof of the pudding is in the eating! (OK, I know the pudding thing has nothing to do with it, but I wanted to work it into a conversation).

    BTW, how long are we going to keep this up? :o)


  • dchall_san_antonio
    8 years ago

    There used to be a 100-reply limit, but that seems to be long gone with Houzz.

  • owlnsr
    8 years ago

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Thank you. The vaping forums are going nuts about the Harvard study on diketones and the older study on formaldehyde.

    Of course, the issue being that diketones in small to modest amounts have, provably, never caused a problem nor a case of popcorn lung. And it wasn't formaldehyde, it was a derivative related chemical that's neither toxic nor carcinogenic.

    (I also solve these problems by making my own liquids and even deriving my own main flavoring, wrapping my own coils with certified wire, and so on, but...I'm the sort that likes to do things for himself anyway).

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    I am coming from ignorance on this subject, but is the point of the post about blood to say that if a little formaldehyde is already in the blood, that more is OK? I'm not sure I follow exactly. How do they know these chemicals were in our blood 100 years ago?

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    Those are all chemicals that are derived biologically by your own systems. The blood is either there to transport them for use or for disposal.

    More is not necessarily better. It's also not necessarily harmful. Testing is required to know that, but we do tend to err on the side of caution when making regulations.

    Formaldehyde, for instance, is most definitely a toxin and carcinogen. However, you do produce some of it. Nobody's suggesting that we add more to the bloodstream.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    Thanks morpheus. I guess I don't understand the context of the advertisement with the vial of blood. Is the message that we shouldn't be afraid of chemicals we use today because they are already in our blood? They say they want to "reduce the stupid" with science. OK, so we have waste products in our bloodstream that the body gets rid of. So what? What is the "stupid" they are trying to combat with this poster?

  • owlnsr
    8 years ago

    I think the message as it applies here is that we shouldn't be afraid of using synthetics in lawn care just because they contain chemicals. Just because something has an "ingredient" with a funny looking name that may be hard to pronounce doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad or wouldn't be produced naturally. For example, organic fertilizers can cause chemical run off just like synthetic fertilizers.

    Somewhat off topic, someone asked me what I was feeding my dog because her fur was so shiny and smooth. This person couldn't believe when I told her that I feed her bagged, dry dog food from the pet store. "All those chemicals and artificial ingredients! It's just not natural!" This person fed her dog a raw diet, and I guess she was assuming that plopping a round of filet mignon into the food bowl was somehow more natural than dog food. To me, that's just as unnatural. (Her dog was also suffering from conditions that may or may not have been related to diet, including terrible fur quality and weak bone issues...)

    Giving a dog a T-bone is as unnatural as dropping countless pounds of soy meal in a lawn to feed it., just as broadcasting Scotts Lawnfood is equally unnatural to feeding your dog dry kibble.

    There is nothing natural about a lawn (or farming or gardening, for that matter). There was an entire hoopla about this years ago, which is why the word "organic" is used where "natural" used to be. Lawns do not exist in nature without human intervention. Stop mowing, feeding and weeding the lawn for a single season and you will see my point. In nature, success would be a single seed out of thousands germinating and surviving log enough to produce more seed. In the man made lawn, success is typically 85-90% germination at a minimum, with the constant upkeep to ensure proper care for many years, and the prevention of any grass plants from producing seed.


    At any rate, I was going for a lighthearted post with that image and not something of serious analysis.

  • morpheuspa (6B/7A, E. PA)
    8 years ago

    You should know we take even the most lighthearted things seriously. :-)

    But true. Lawns are not natural. Modern lifespans are not natural. Neither is a bad thing, and both are sustained by creative chemistry and holding things in states that nature doesn't allow without help.

    I could go off on a rant here about people who criticize any chemical they can't pronounce (they also seem unable to pronounce most things), but we'll let it go.

  • Tom Henderson
    8 years ago

    I have not read this whole thread , but i use a combination of organic and synthetic lawn products. I have always thought that a so called 'chemical fertilizer'- ( such as 15-15-15) is just natural elements that have been condensed into prill or pellet for easier use.

  • dchall_san_antonio
    8 years ago

    This thread is wobbling all over the place, so I'll just pitch in something and see how it's taken.

    When wild dogs eat an animal, they eat the entire animal, guts, fur, feathers, and all. The raw diet does not always take into consideration hair/feathers and intestines.

    True there are some naturally occurring deposits of fertilizer materials, but that does not mean they would be good nutrition for the microbes living in a lawn soil.

    Every now and then I'll be walking the dogs and see a field of grass that is generally uncared for except by the city mowing crew. And sometimes there are some sporadic tufts of really tall, really deep green, grass. When I see those I wonder, "What died there?" Was it a large insect, small rodent, a bird, or what? Or did a dog take a dump in that spot? Whatever it was it became a natural fertilizer in that one spot.

    Pelletized fertilizer is much easier to use than the ground up corn dust I usually get. I've used pelletized corn gluten meal, but it's pricey. Rabbit chow is pelletized, but big pellets. Hamster or chinchilla chow is sometimes smaller, but a lot more expensive - probably because of packaging. Most fish chow is also just alfalfa pellets. I used to take that to the zoo to feed the koi. Interestingly the alpaca and llama would rather eat fallen oak leaves than alfalfa pellets. The kids around them were putting quarters in the feed dispensers and the llamas were ignoring them. I picked up some of the leaves on the ground and the animals came running. ...and those are some seriously ugly animals up close.

    I stopped weeding, feeding, mowing, and watering my lawn for 3 years and this was the result...

    Instead of weeds I had these giant, dog shaped, mushrooms growing in my tall St Augustine. My wife's fear is that I'll let the grass get like this at the new house. Well I only did that because nobody was nagging me to not do it. The new grass looks more normal.

  • danielj_2009
    8 years ago

    Instead of weeds I had these giant, dog shaped, mushrooms growing in my tall St Augustine.


    I read this in the car earlier today and had a good laugh. Thanks!