"A good hybrid program, like what YardTractor1 is mentioning he uses, will do exactly the same thing."

You are too kind and I'm afraid I may have mislead you into believing I have much of a hybrid program. The only organic application I have applied the lat couple of years has been Milorganite right before July with an occasional second application after the first of August depending on conditions and my mood. Not sure that qualifies. I do mulch mow and mowing a very dense lawn every 3-5 days makes for a lot of clippings for OM. I just went out and parted my lawn in a couple of places and nothing but black soil. I'm happy. I'm sure if we continue to post here any differences of opinion will reveal themselves and will get due attention.
Yes, age and a fixed income does have a tendency to color one's view.

danielj,
As I mentioned, in general, organic care will serve you well and I see no problems with your plan. That doesn't mean that this fall, if we are both still here, that I might not suggest a synthetic app. or maybe even a mechanical process depending on circumstances (and my mood).

To quote an old, green sage, "Much to learn, I have." The added discussion about tweaking as necessary with synthetics is interesting. The good news is I don't have to learn it all at once. With your guys help and a soil test I'll be on my way. Thanks!

Ain't nuthin' wrong with synthetics.

Shhh! In the flower gardens, fully half my feeding is synthetic. It's the only way to thunder in enough resources for heavy, constant blooming of 750 plants in 2,000 square feet. Or the only way without having a constant miasma of decay over the garden, overwhelming the flowers.

Or the only way without having a constant miasma of decay over the garden, overwhelming the flowers

Hilarious!!! He's referring to the "aroma" you get when you apply enough organic grains to actually have an effect on flowers.

I figure about $5 per 1,000 square feet per application of alfalfa pellets. I don't have any idea what chemical ferts cost per 1,000.

In retrospect, as I learn more about soil and grass, Jerry Baker's biggest mistake was relying on small amounts of ammonia as the sole fertilizer. Grass needs pounds and pounds of N to benefit. Ammonia won't supply that. But the rest of his ideas, soda, dish soap, beer, etc. were possibly ahead of their time - or at least ahead of the typical lawn pro's understanding. Also he was very vague on coverage for his concoctions. And his tobacco juice may have been slightly dangerous, but I don't see anyone dying from it.

Ok. I feel I must defend the world of synthetics.
Total annual cost per/M:
Triple 12 -applied 1 1/2# (some years just 1#) = $3.99
Urea - applied 3 1/2# (some years just 3#) = $3.04
Milorganite - applied 1# (sometimes 2# depending on synthetics) = $5.32
Total cost of 5# N/M of synthetics = $7.03
Total cost of 6# N/M with "organic" Milorganite = $12.35

$5.00 to apply 1# of N/M using alfalfa?

You really want to have this debate?

I'm sure, because it's not a debate. Cost per 1,000 is simple facts. Thanks for your experience with the various materials.

Actually I don't know if that is a pound of N with alfalfa or not. That is a rate that works a miracle on my lawn and it works out to about $5 per application.

Unlike my lawn, I have a very, very dry sense of humor, acerbic maybe. I'm not attempting to discount organics, bait you or trick you into somehow admitting that synthetics are superior to organics.

The point is for those of us on a budget, do you really think $7.00 per M of alfalfa is going to produce a (KB in this instance as nutrient needs are going to vary) lawn the equal of a lawn given $7.00 per M of synthetics on an annual basis?

In other words, if a person were to say, "I want a first rate lawn. I live in Utica, New York and have a KB lawn and can spend no more than $10 per M on annual maintenance," what would you recommend?

This post was edited by yardtractor1 on Thu, Jul 3, 14 at 0:59

>>And his tobacco juice may have been slightly dangerous, but I don't see anyone dying from it.

Except bees. Nicotinoids and neonicotinoids are horrible for bee populations, as well as other pollinators. They're so peripatetic that the poor things get exposed to many plants.

>>The point is for those of us on a budget, do you really think $7.00 per M of alfalfa is going to produce a (KB in this instance as N needs are going to vary) lawn the equal of a lawn given $7.00 per M of synthetics on an annual basis?

Superior performance, actually, assuming that the soil chemistry is good, the owner always mulch mows, and we're not talking about the first to third year. Organics tend to hang around and cycle about over and over again. The fungal associations and bacterial populations in the root zone can't be underestimated in their importance.

Really, 75% at minimum of a plant's life is under the ground. That above-ground stuff is only there to gather carbon and sunlight--all else is sourced from the soil.

Synthetics are absolutely superior in the case where the soil chemistry is whacked. They don't care that, in my locale for example, the average pH is 4.5 and rainfall tends to be 4.0. Unfortunately, they also react acidically in their final state (urea's initial is intensely alkaline but the resultant is an acid) and tend to throw the pH off further and leach calcium, magnesium, and potassium over time.

Synthetics will still be more effective in the proper pH range (personally, my lawn's balanced at 6.2-ish, the gardens around 6.4, but I balance lower than average). They'll still leach resources, however.

I could almost certainly do this more cheaply with basic urea, but I don't touch the stuff. It's too easy to make a (big) mistake with a very small amount of material.

And yes, I put urea on the synthetic side even though it's an organic molecule and produced organically in large quantity. For most of us, the definition of organic also includes, "contains significant amounts of organic carbon including protein, lignite, cellulose, etc."

Sorry I edited while you posted. Interesting insights have you. Refreshing to see someone who appreciates the importance of being "rooted."

If someone believes that chemicals are the only thing that fit into their lawn hobby, then I would recommend at least one application of organics per year to feed the soil microbes. One of the problems that can happen when the microbes get no food is what is called a see-saw effect. When the microbial populations collapse they cannot tend to the roots properly or process what is left of the chemical fertilizers. You end up needing more and more chemicals to see the normal effect. Then all of a sudden, blammo and the grass either dies from stress or explodes in growth. When the explosion effect subsides, it seems to sink to a new low and requires more and more chemicals to get the greening. At some point the stress on the grass will combine with other stresses and it will be prone to disease or heat. This is too easy to avoid with the occasional use of organics.

Back 15 years ago, the only organics was compost. In my neighborhood, with delivery, compost costs $75 per 1,000 square feet for one application, so the idea of using grain type fertilizer really cut down the cost of organic lawn care.

I saw see-sawing first-hand in my own soil the first couple of years, but the chemistry was in a fully collapsed state. Name an element important to plant health...I was deficient on it. Except manganese. Whoopee.

Warranted, I went in the opposite direction and my top-flight year was over 1,300 pounds of organics per thousand square feet--a lot of which was importing leaves from every source I could get my hands on in October and November. Hauling a grand total of 9 1/2 tons of OM to cover lawn and gardens in a growing season was no great fun.

I was trying to see if I could overload the soil. The answer was a resounding "no," although I did walk out of that with an organic matter percentage over 14% and worm populations that can actually be kind of gross in rainfall.

I understand your not wanting to answer the hypothetical. Hopefully you aren't stating that grass clippings don't qualify as organic OM or that they didn't exist until the last 15 years. I may disagree with your unsupported convictions but I do respect your religion. ;)

>>I understand your not wanting to answer the hypothetical. Hopefully you aren't stating that grass clippings don't qualify as organic OM or that they didn't exist until the last 15 years.

Did I miss a hypothetical in there? Sorry, this thread is getting hefty.

Grass clippings absolutely count as OM and can easily raise an established, older lawn to 6%-7% OM all by themselves in this area. It may take a long time (grass blade being mostly water), but it'll get there.

I've never done anything but recycle grass clippings, although I do occasionally steal a little bit for the compost bin. By default, my robotic mower only mulch-mows, but my Toro will happily do either.

Returning grass clippings doesn't do anything to actually feed the lawn, but does recycle some of what was used to feed it in the first place.

They can't correct a soil imbalance as they grew there in the first place--but I don't generally use organic methdology to correct an imbalance in the first place. It's too slow, and the actual content of a given element is too variable. I tend to lean toward sulfate-based chemistry for that as it's gentle, but still quite fast.

While grass clippings have existed as long as there's been grass, most people haven't grass-cycled for very long. It's only recently that cities and towns have encouraged the practice, or refused to take bags of grass.

"Did I miss a hypothetical in there? Sorry, this thread is getting hefty"

Yes, I edited my post while you were posting, hence the apology post.

>> " if a person were to say, "I want a first rate lawn. I live in Utica, New York and have a KB lawn and can spend no more than $10 per M on annual maintenance," what would you recommend?"

I am not debating which is better (that has been beaten to death over the years and I'm not foolish enough to argue that a lawn doesn't need microbes), just cost.

"Hopefully you aren't stating that grass clippings don't qualify as organic OM or that they didn't exist until the last 15 years."

I was responding to dchall's statements about a collapse of the microbial populations. I have seen studies of nutrient requirements based on maximum growth potential, but I have never seen any study related to the level of microbial populations required for a health turf or the minimum levels of OM necessary to sustain that microbial population level. All I do know is that I've had a healthy lawn using my current practices, however, if I were to change my prctices and use nothing but synthtics and started bagging, I would expect the lawn to eventually suffer. I don't know when. It may be months or decades. (please spare me opinions folks, but if you have studies, feel free to chime in.)

"Returning grass clippings doesn't do anything to actually feed the lawn, but does recycle some of what was used to feed it in the first place."

As stated previously, I was alluding to using clippings to feed the soil (microbes/organisms) rather than feeding the turf. In regards to feeding the turf, I understand that the microbe population processes some amount of OM NPK into nutrients that are then available for use by the turf, but I must admit I'm a lot lost here. universities and turf management organizations tend to agree that the NPK value of clippings is 4-1-2 give or take. I've never been able to grasp that NPK levels/measurements aren't really applicable to organics. So I'm at a disadvantage here.

This post was edited by yardtractor1 on Thu, Jul 3, 14 at 15:04

>> " if a person were to say, "I want a first rate lawn. I live in Utica, New York and have a KB lawn and can spend no more than $10 per M on annual maintenance," what would you recommend?"

Prayer. On my lawn, that's $100 over the whole thing.

In this particular instance, I'd recommend one synthetic application--when top growth stops at the end of the season. Of all the feedings, that one is going to increase survivability the most.

There's enough cash left over for a second application and a bottle of Weed-B-Gone concentrate. That second app, I'd recommend soybean meal in early September.

Spot treat weeds as necessary.

If temperatures were compatible--they're not--I'd recommend using soybean meal in November instead for a little added organic material in addition to the September app.

>>I was responding to dchall's statements about a collapse of the microbial populations. I have seen studies of nutrient requirements based on maximum growth potential, but I have never seen any study related to the level of microbial populations required for a health turf or the minimum levels of OM necessary to sustain that microbial population level.

I've seen no studies either.

Eventually, yes, it'll suffer. Synthetics, having no carbon in them, tend to burn soil carbon to use the nitrogen. Bacterial action is required in most cases to turn the N as applied into N the plants and bacteria can use. To do that, they need carbon for energy (sugar) and structure (reproduction).

If you start with a very high OM percentage, that could be a long time (assuming no-till, no aeration methods like most lawns get).

>>,,,universities and turf management organizations tend to agree that the NPK value of clippings is 4-1-2 give or take. I've never been able to grasp that NPK isn't really applicable to organics. So I'm at a disadvantage here.

Dry weight. Grass clippings range from 75% to 85% water, so only 15%-25% of the weight is applicable.

Yep, they do, but you also just returned the clippings to the same ground they came out of (which supplied all those resources in the first place). Nobody's saying that grass clippings don't reduce fertilization requirements. They sure do!

And you could import grass clippings in large masses to feed your lawn. 25 pounds per thousand of completely dry grass clippings (quite a lot) would supply 1 pound of N, assuming no resource losses during the drying process. But there you're going outside your local patch to bring in resources to add to your soil.

Analyzing that fully, it would seem that nature never gets ahead. Fortunately, that's false. Some nitrogen comes in during every rainfall (about 3 PPM, more in thunderstorms). Resources flow in via rainfall as well since raindrops tend to form on dust particulates.

It's not enough to maintain the kinds of lawns we like, however.

Two quick items:

1. What exactly is OM?

2. This is probably the least user friendly forum I've ever used. I have my preferences set to notify me of new emails in threads I'm contributing to, but I've never received an email that someone has posted. I do have my settings set to allow this as required. Anybody have any idea why this happens? I tried to contact the admins, but they never answer questions.

Thanks!

OM= organic matter (alfalfa, leaves, clippings, sludge, etc.)

Can't help you with #2.

1) What YardTractor1 Said. :-) Sorry about the abbreviations, I do it without thinking.

2) Nor can I help you, I've never gotten the notifications to work correctly for me.

OM, Organic Matter. I figured something like that.

So in NJ we got the outskirts of hurricane Arthur, which has blown out today. It got a little windy and we had periods of heavy rain. So anyway I have these large industrial cans of tuna I put out to check rainfall. Since we always think rain drops more water on the lawn than reality, I was curious to see the totals.

On the 2nd we had some heavy rain and I found 1" of water in the can. Yesterday, the 3rd, I emptied the can just before the next round of storms. This morning the dang can had just over 2" of water!! I was shocked. So that makes about 3" total on Wed and Thurs. I had already watered the lawn with 1" last Sunday, so it's fair to say the ground is saturated. 4" of water in less than a week! The mushrooms are going crazy!

Anyway if I'm lucky my core sampler will arrive in the mail tomorrow, and I get get some samples to the lab. I'm very interested to see the results.

Happy and safe 4th to everybody!

Dan

Hope you had a great Fourth as well, Dan!

Yeah, Arthur wasn't much on wind, but in a few locales it was hefty in terms of rainfall. In my case over the line in PA, we got exactly 0.00" from it. At one point we did get a fifteen mile an hour wind gust, though...

I use a basic digital rain gauge. It's OK, nothing to write home about, but was about $10 on Amazon. It does its job.

I've never been able to grasp that NPK levels/measurements aren't really applicable to organics. So I'm at a disadvantage here.

With organics we're feeding food to the soil. NPK is not food. Neither are the traditional chemicals which are found in chemical fertilizers. Grains, grasses, nuts, beans, and seeds contain protein, vitamins, minerals, and carbohydrates. Animals contain protein, fats, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. Protein contains nitrogen molecules which eventually get turned into plant food. Carbohydrates contain carbon which, to me, is meaningless except that carbohydrates are an energy source and carbon is a black, worthless element. Once you convert your mind out of NPK you never need to look back. High protein food like soybean meal makes a better greening fertilizer than low protein food like corn and coffee beans. But that does not mean corn or coffee beans are not valuable. Carbohydrates are good, too, they just don't green up the grass. Or do they??? There are microbes in the soil which absorb nitrogen from the air, thus providing more pounds of nitrogen than you originally applied. There is also added value in that a byproduct of protein decomposition is ammonia gas. When ammonia gas has no moisture around, it drifts away and becomes that aroma we are all familiar with a few days after you apply too much grain. But if you have a layer of old grass clippings on the grass, those dried out clippings can absorb the ammonia and hold it in place. If you ever had a stinking compost pile, all you had to do to stop the stink was cover the top with dry leaves. Smell stopped. Same thing with the grass. Mowed grass clippings form a micro-mulch which absorbs ammonia gas. Once the dew hits and rewets the surface, the ammonia trapped in the micro-mulch soaks into the moisture and can leak back down into the soil to fertilize the plants. None of these are chemical (NPK) processes. These depend on setting up the soil with micro-mulch and feeding organic food to the microbes.

I don't know if that clears anything up, but...

Back on yardtractor's side topic, would you mind posting where you buy your chemical fertilizers, what brand, what size bag, etc.? I'm not asking to check your numbers, but fertilizer seems to be a mystery to many people. If they wanted to replicate your values, where would they go and what would they buy? As for mine, you go to the feed store and get a bag of alfalfa pellets for $12 to $15.

"Back on yardtractor's side topic, would you mind posting where you buy your chemical fertilizers, what brand, what size bag, etc.? I'm not asking to check your numbers, but fertilizer seems to be a mystery to many people."

I get my products from one of two sources. The first is a unique Mom and Pop Seed and Fertilizer store that I think a local farmer started years ago and his daughter and son-in-law run. The second place is the same place you probably get your organic fertilizers, it is a "common" Feed and Seed store (the type that carries fertilizer, bird seeds and animal feed pretty much in generic bulk bags) about 25 miles from me. This year I bought from the M&P, but their prices are usually within a few cents of one another, The only reason I don't buy from the M&P is if they don't have it which varies from year to year, but I always compare prices and availability at the beginning of the season.
I purchase 46-0-0 in fifty pound bags, this year for $19.95. If I get it from the Mom and Pop, it is usually labeled "Farm Grow," (not Fox). If I get it from the Feed and Seed it is just labeled 46-0-0 and in small print says "packaged by X fertilizer company somewhere in Ohio--sorry I don't have any bags from last year to be more specific on the company. This year, I purchased 50# bags of triple 19 labeled "Farm Grow" for $19.95 a bag. Once again, if I get it from the Feed and Seed, it is labeled generically. Usually I like to get triple 12 (easier to spread) but it was $15.95 this year, so the triple 19 was a better buy. I bought Milorganite Classic 6-2-0 in 50# bags for $15.95 again from the M&P, and the Feed and Seed had it for the same price.

" If they wanted to replicate your values, where would they go and what would they buy?"

They have got to be willing to do the research and spend a little shoe leather to find a Feed and Seed store that hasn't gone "commercial," They may have to travel, but if you buy everything in March or April like I do, it is one trip.

Edit:: the Farm Grow bag states that it is distributed by the Western Reserve Farm Cooperative,-if that helps.

Here is a link that might be useful: Feed and Seed Locator (kinda)

This post was edited by yardtractor1 on Sun, Jul 6, 14 at 8:41

>>Carbohydrates are good, too, they just don't green up the grass. Or do they??? There are microbes in the soil which absorb nitrogen from the air, thus providing more pounds of nitrogen than you originally applied.

Kinda. Nitrogen fixation is an extremely expensive process. It's most effective when in association with a plant, where the plant can feed copious carbs to the bacteria. When we grow them as crops (like soybean, clover, and so on), we tend to feed the plants.

You'll notice that most plants don't form that association. It takes 9 units of energy to create 1 molecule of N. It takes less than 1 unit to absorb N from the soil.

Free-wheeling nitrogen fixers are generally not very efficient. They'll spend most of their lives absorbing it like any other bacteria--the process is there for nitrogen-short periods (which never exist in my lawn and gardens).

...and the best nitrogen fixer I know of, wood rot fungus, works best above ground. But it happens and we don't know what the value added is to the process. There is so much we don't know.

>>...and the best nitrogen fixer I know of, wood rot fungus, works best above ground. But it happens and we don't know what the value added is to the process. There is so much we don't know.

Exactly. Wood is very high carbon, very low nitrogen--either it needs a nitrogen fixing bacteria/fungus to deal with it, an insect (like ants), or a source of nitrogen (rare).

Grass doesn't form associations with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, so the best we can do is allow white Dutch clover into our lawns to fix some nitrogen for us via their root nodules. Even so, it's not adequate to supply all the feeding for bluegrass by a mile. Some heirloom ryes or fescues...maybe.

I'm not sure it's better or not, but I thought I'd keep all my lawn issues/questions in this thread. I have a question while I'm waiting on my core sampler to arrive:

Last fall my sod was new and we've had so much rain this year that I've watered the lawn only once or twice. I want to "wean" my lawn onto a 10 day or so schedule and I know you have to do that gradually. When I take a core sample for soil analysis, I assume I will be able to see the length of the roots. Is this a correct assumption, and how long should I expect them to be for a 10 day watering cycle?

Oh yeah, this IS your thread, sorry Dan.

How deep for a 10 day watering schedule? It is just not that simple.

Soil structure and conditions (clay, sand, hard pan, gravel or bed rock layer, etc.) and turf type (KB, fescue, bermuda, etc) have a far, far greater influence on rooting than watering.
A root system 3" deep in a clay soil may last 10 days between watering, but a root system 12" deep in sand probably wont last 5 days.
The better route is to observe for signs of distress (wilting, leaf roll, color change) and let that be your guide. Every couple of waterings, you lengthen the period between waterings. Eventually, you are going to hit a wall, the tipping point, where you can't lengthen the period any longer without harming the turf.

That's interesting. About stress from lack of water -- I know people say the grass will wilt and won't bounce back after walking on it. However, I've seen areas of the lawn in the past where it started to look and feel dry, almost straw-like under foot. The grass isn't brown and dead, just kind of dry looking. Even on my front lawn sod the section closer to the house is shaded in late afternoon and that area grows fastest and greenest. The lower section is in full sun all day, and seems to get dryer and stiffer, rather than getting that wilted look. Oh, it is KBG.

I've done plenty of 10 days intervals with st augustine grass at my old house during the summers. A lot of people could not believe that... The soil was turning out to be very nice after inheriting rocky limestone soil mixed in with a bit of clay based topsoil (they completely razed the whole place for new subdivision). Full of earthworms too. I'm having to start over at the new house. At least they did not raze the whole neighborhood plus they added 6-8 yards of nice topsoil to my lot. It will take several years to get the soil all nice... again.

I found vast inconsistencies the first few years that were unrelated to the location in the yard. It was, simply, that the soil was crap.

I have 69% silt, 30% clay, 1% sand from the jar test. That's not a textbook perfect soil by any means, although I tend to prefer high silt levels.

In sandier soils, grasses (and everything else) will drop roots very deep, but dry out pretty fast. In my soil, shallower roots grow, but they don't dry out that fast.

In a very sandy soil, you may never reach 10 days. In an organic muck soil, maybe only every 14 to 21.

I don't know if the Logan Labs test will indicate whether my soil is sandy or clay, but I can say it is pretty "normal" NJ soil. It doesn't seem overly full of clay and it definitely isn't sandy. Just kind of average, I think. I'll post more when I start getting tube samples.

Unless you request the test, they don't report that. And there's no reason to request the test, you can put soil in a jar, add water, shake, and let it settle into layers. Sand settles in 3 minutes, silt in 3 hours, clay in 3 days.

Sum the total height and each measurement and figure out what each percentage is.

Dan,

If you are under the impression that there is a formula for calculating the watering schedules or even soil water holding capacity based on a soil's sand/silt/clay ratios, there isn't.

morpheus - thanks I'll do that soil test with the leftovers.

yardtractor - I hadn't thought that deeply. My lawn is new from last fall and we've had a huge amount of rain this year. So as we get into the hot months and I'm going to a 1 week/10 day/2 week? watering schedule, I realized that it takes time to get roots into condition to handle that schedule. Not having any idea how deep my roots are, it occurred to me I could just look at how long the roots are when I take core samples. If soil samples are to be taken down to 6 inches, and my soil is "average" it seemed reasonable to think the roots should be at least 4" long to handle the less frequent watering schedule. I understand now it is more complicated than that, but there must be at least some value in looking at the length of the roots, no?

Also, I think Logan Labs just says something like to sample down six inches. To a newbie that's a little vague. I assume we are supposed to remove soil for sampling from where the roots are all the way down to 6 inches?

I sample the soil in a zone that is below 3" but above 5". And yes, the current root zone is important for watering. The plant can only drink from where the roots are, but you want an area of oil mist deeper than the root zone to encourage root development and as a "buffer to help slow percolation of water out of the root zone. I suppose you could use your fancy plug remover to check how deep you are actually wetting the soil after a watering as a guide to watering.

This post was edited by yardtractor1 on Thu, Jul 10, 14 at 9:54

yardtractor - yes it is quite fancy! lol I just got it in the mail today. I thought I'd try that, too - to check for water depth.

So I guess I'm going to submit whatever soil I get between wherever the soil seems free of debris/root bits, and down to about 6". I can't imagine there is a great deal going on down there at 6" deep. What's it called, the "microherd"? Dem critters hang out that deep?

Critters hang out down to miles. No, seriously, there are chemotropic extremophile bacteria living down there.

Most don't have much impact on your lawn, of course, in periods of less than millions of years, so we ignore them.

I tend to recommend sampling to 4" deep, and make sure you record that on the Logan sheet (when reading a Logan test, I adjust your figures for the depth given on the report). For average soils, that's about right--the vast majority of your feeder roots will be in the top four inches, with only structural and water supplying roots down below. Resources below the four inch level don't matter so much.

The A (top or second from the top) zone of your soil has the most activity and holds most of the feeder roots. An O (organic) zone may exist above that, but it's strictly temporary although exceptionally active in terms of bacteria, fungi, and micro-arthropods.

B zone soils contain structural and water roots, but no real feeder roots. I'm not concerned about soil pH or mineral resources at this level--they'll get down there eventually anyway. It's nice to have good OM in this region, but it'll take considerable time to get it down there (less with lots of earthworms, which can zip right through the B zone and well into lower zones).

Lower zones generally only contain tap roots (which often double as roots for structural integrity as well). Resource management at this level is of no concern, as well as being practically impossible to manage. "Soil" at this level is frequently very stony (in this area, limestone and granite are both common). Soil life does exist at this level, but it tends to be very low energy due to the lack of oxygen.

Base rock is effectively non-living and not able to support life, although if you sampled it you'd still find a lot of bacteria and fungi down there, happily living slow lives never seeing the sun.

And yes, there's no plan for watering (which annoyed my father to no end). My plan? Water when it gets dry, which might be every ten days or not at all that season. So far this year, I've watered two or three times.

Fat-fingered , meant to type 3-5. previous post corrected.

Critters hang out down to miles. No, seriously,...I've watered two or three times.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I like hanging out where morph hangs out. He's full of information.

So daniel, what's up with you? After reading all the pertinent and impertinent information in this running multilog, what are you doing to fix your lawn?

>>And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I like hanging out where morph hangs out. He's full of information.

Don't get too excited, most of it's useless, or useful only under extremely unusual circumstances.

Please cal me Dan, dchall!

Well, I've been reading this and all the other threads, too. I don't know why I find this interesting, but I do (background in chem engineering). I guess mowing a perfect lawn is like stocking your closet full of clean, nicely folded clothes, or getting all the bills paid and out of the way...

ANYWAY, here's where I'm at on the lawn:

I just received my core sampler so I can send two samples to Logan Labs. I figure one representative sample for the front lawn sod, and one for the back seeded lawn. I'll report results back here for my marching orders. I am going to test my soil for sand/clay per morpheus this weekend.

It seems to me there are benefits of using both organic and synthetic treatments for the lawn. If I could use 100% organic in a practical way and have the best, healthiest and greenest lawn that way then that'd be great. However, I read things here and there like how the organic fertilizers don't really work in cold weather when the bugs slow down.

Ultimately I am looking to piece together a full-year comprehensive lawn care program. Since you and morpheus seem to be the manual, I have to come here for that information! I'm trying to learn everything I can now so I don't need to ask a million questions you've already answered elsewhere.

I plan to buy cornmeal and/or cornmeal gluten and alfalpha pellets and so on, but I wanted to sample the lawn as it is before dressing it up with anything. I also need to reseed some of the back lawn in the fall, and learn how to get rid of some weeds (use preemerg? in the spring)?

So all in all I'm looking forward to getting started on a great lawn program, but I have to do the sampling first.

Thanks so much for your interest!

Dan

background in chem engineering

OMG! morph, Dan is going to love Logan Labs!!

Dan since you have KBG, it's going dormant in the winter anyway...unless you listen to morph. It just so happens that he's been successful at minimizing dormancy in his KBG. And I have a picture...

{{gwi:100186}}

That pic was taken December 1, 2010. DECEMBER and he still has a head-turning lawn. Did I mention that you're going to love Logan Labs? If you'll reread morph's plan, he uses organics all year long until his last app of the year. When the grass is still green but has stopped growing, he hits it with a chemical winterizer.

Regarding the cost of organics: Look at what you're trying to do. You already are 90% of the way toward having the best lawn in your community. With the Logan Labs test you can get the rest of the way in minimal time. Then look at your total square footage. Calculate the difference between using Milorganite/Alfalfa/corn meal or whatever you can find locally versus the cost of chemical ferts. The annual difference is going to be in the range of $10. I'm not sure if the chemicals will cost more or less, because a pure organic plan seems to have benefits of fewer issues requiring less chemical inputs. I'm talking about herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide.

And then consider that this is your hobby. You are not the average home owner. Stomping the snot out of your closest lawn competitor is your goal. People are going to stop and say, "What the He(ck)!" and they'll do that 12 months out of the year. People will come up to you and ask how you do it. You'll say, "I just water, mow and fertilize." The difference is you're watering, mowing, and fertilizing right.

>>It just so happens that he's been successful at minimizing dormancy in his KBG. And I have a picture...

So you're the one who stalks my lawn. Actually, you're not the only one. :-)

That photo was taken in an ice storm, so I'm actually standing out there with ice pelting me on the head. The lawn remains green through February, but does tend to take a four week break if we get temperatures dropping under fifteen consistently--then it gets less green and may even brown a bit.

Some is the organic base. Some is the potassium levels in the soil (I set them higher than average). Some is using kelp in November to offset the tendency to go dormant. And some is the iron spray it gets in November to boost the color, increase how dark it is (which concentrates sunlight as heat), and increases photosynthesis even in the short days of winter.

>>With the Logan Labs test you can get the rest of the way in minimal time.

Mind what you promise. :-) Primary issues can be dealt with reasonably quickly, but if the pH is severely off (I doubt it from the photo) or another resource is way off (could be), correction may still take several years. Micronutrient corrections may take several years as well to avoid stressing the grass.

>>The annual difference is going to be in the range of $10.

Post the earlier question, I figured out that my four apps per year cost a grand total of $18 per thousand square feet, or not very much. Add in the final winterization app (synthetic) and it comes up to about $22.

I haven't bought any chemicals in years--I have enough Tenacity on-hand for another decade. Round Up...I dunno, fifteen years?

>>With the Logan Labs test you can get the rest of the way in minimal time.

My point, not very well made, was that if you don't use Logan Labs to test the soil, you might never get there. Minimal might take years, but never takes a lot longer.

lol dchall... yes, of course the purpose of all this is to kick the snot out of the neighbors -- especially since my next door neighbor owns a big lawn care company! (just kidding in case you are reading this, Jason). This lawn was a mild embarrassment for a long time, so I guess I have some past scores to settle.

The cost of treatment isn't a big issue for me, as long as it is the right thing for the lawn, then the cost is OK.

I have to say how much I hate the forum software that GardenWeb uses - it is the least user friendly of any I've used (for things like inline quoting, email notification, etc, plus they never answer questions). However, the content is excellent!

Morph's lawn is awesome, especially since that is December! The green"ness" in the winter is what really brought me here. My sod was put down in early October, and it stayed very green for a long time. That got me thinking there might be a way to maintain that. Looks like morph figured it out.

So how do you guys deal with weeds around the edges of the lawn, in the cracks between the driveway and belgium block, in your mulched areas, and so on? (That is, without chemicals). Just pick them out? Particularly on the driveway and on the curb at the street I feel like I need regular weed killer spray, if not in the plant beds.

>>Just pick them out?

Yep.

If the task is daunting (read, I ignored the gardens for far too long), I'll use Round Up in a sprayer that has a good tip. It can focus the spray down incredibly fine and only in a ten degree cone in front of the head. Isolation of individual weeds is pretty easy.

At most cracks and edges, I've applied a good amount of Prodiamine, sufficient for full-season protection. I do the same on the stone patio and front walkway so I'm not constantly pulling weeds there as well.

"Add in the final winterization app (synthetic) and it comes up to about $22."

My gawd son, you don't need to buy the gold coated urea prills. Urea shouldn't cost more than $1 a pound.

If money isn't a consideration, definitely go organic with a synthetic urea winterizer for maintenance once your lawn is firmly established. As this is a newly sodded lawn, I'd suggest you do the organics and add spoon feeding triple NPK late summer and late September, substitute it for the winterizer and spoon feed it again next Spring and continue that schedule through next year and maybe even the next Then go straight organics (with the synthetic winterizer) for the rest of your life.
Just my 2 cents.
As far as weeds, get in the habit of walking your lawn before mowing it (you should doing this for safety anyway.) With experience you'll recognize which weeds you can reach down and pull root and all. The others, just spot spray with Ortho. If you keep a healthy lawn, you will eventually have very few weeds and even fewer that require spraying.

>>My gawd son, you don't need to buy the gold coated urea prills. Urea shouldn't cost more than $1 a pound.

I don't use urea. (Nose in air) It's a terrible, planet-destroying chemical.

No, but seriously, I produce the stuff myself in copious amounts. In my case, it's more being used to organics, which means that I'm used to seeing stuff hurled around. I don't have a good feel for smaller amounts, so tend to purchase 29-0-3. The margin of error is considerably greater.

And fortunately, lawns in November in Pennsylvania are very forgiving to begin with. Anything from 1 to 1.5 pounds of nitrogen per thousand is perfectly OK, and even slightly more than that will be tolerable. I target 1.2.

>>As far as weeds, get in the habit of walking your lawn before mowing it

Actually, I never do--because I use a robotic mower, so I never really mow the lawn, per se. I send out the robot, touch a button, and off she goes.