Sacha wrote:
On 24/11/05 6:14 pm, in article
, "pied piper"
wrote:


"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , pied piper
writes
So all the experts are wrong about fertiliser and you are right
dont be so cynical

I wish people would post reasoning in support of their diktats.
The
only way I can judge whether PP's or Mike's advice is the better
is
by the supporting arguments and respective posting histories on
urg
- in this respect Mike has the edge!


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the
river"

So the last 25 years I have been wrong to feed my golf
greens,bowling
greens,cricket squares,football pitches,rugby pitches,ornamental
lawns and various other turf areas.


As Kay says, we know Mike Lyle and the quality of his advice. With
respect to you, we know nothing about you, other than that you
appear
to want an argument, and that's rather tiresome if you can't back
up
your 'expertise' with some hard information. And we only have your
(unknown) word for the rather sweeping claims you make above.

This is kind of fellow-urglers. I'll absolutely stand by my thinking
on the specific original question. On the broader issue of whether
lawns are often over-fed, I stand by that, too. But PP has a point
when it comes to those sports surfaces which have their top growth
removed very often (in some, I've heard, several times a day!) and
very short. These are special cases. First-class cricket pitches in
particular are plain weird, horticulturally speaking. But we were
talking about a _lawn_. I think it's highly misguided to treat all
grassed areas the same way: with a "one size fits all" policy he's
probably wasting money at best.

--
Mike.