"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:40:01 -0400, Bishop Don Magic Juan
insertnamehere.co.uk wrote:

Where do people like you and Jaszewski get your mytholigical information?

Listen you anonymous putz, my information is based on real world
experience. Now go back to your corner!

It may be based on realworld experience but it is wrong none the less. If
you don't know what you are talking about you should refrain from posting.

Peter H

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:55:27 GMT, "Peter H"
wrote:

It may be based on realworld experience but it is wrong none the less. If
you don't know what you are talking about you should refrain from posting.

Peter H
Or maybe Peter you are living in the past and are clueless about
sustainable gardening. Or perhaps you sell Scotts products?

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:55:27 GMT, "Peter H"
wrote:


And you call this good advise?
You no talent putz! there are lots of us who can manage lawns without
ANY herbicides!

http://www.cedar-grove.com/solutions...rf/default.htm
http://www.growingsolutions.com/

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...f+manag ement



- if your lawn is healthy you should be able to keep it virtually weed-free
w/ only 2 properly applied applications of weed killer per year
- although the weed killers used on lawns are " selective herbicides" they
will kill other vegetation, including trees, if applied in too high a
dosage. You won't actually know what your application rate is.
- the dilution rate would probably be too high. Most of the active
ingredient in weed killers is absorbed through the leaf of the plant itself.
Your method will wash it off before it has a chance to be absorbed, even if
you happen to get the application rate right.
- The overspray from your sprinkler will wash onto your drive and street
sending pesticide directly to the sewer.

I would suggest that the simplest way to apply weed control for the average
homeowner would be with a hand-held sprayer or a watering can. I recommend
blanket spraying the lawn twice/ year. If you have persistent weeds you may
have to increase applications for the 1st year. After that twice/ year
should do it. If you still have persistent weeds suspect an insect
infestation that is thinning the grass to the point that the weed seeds are
being allowed to germinate.

Peter H

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.home.lawn.garden:5803 rec.gardens:429866

"Peter H" wrote:
"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:40:01 -0400, Bishop Don Magic Juan
insertnamehere.co.uk wrote:

Where do people like you and Jaszewski get your mytholigical
information?

Listen you anonymous putz, my information is based on real world
experience. Now go back to your corner!

It may be based on realworld experience but it is wrong none the less. If
you don't know what you are talking about you should refrain from
posting.

Peter H

This is starting to smell like cross posted flame bait, so I treat
it as such.

--
GO #40

Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:40:01 -0400, Bishop Don Magic Juan
insertnamehere.co.uk wrote:

Where do people like you and Jaszewski get your mytholigical
information?

Listen you anonymous putz, my information is based on real world
experience. Now go back to your corner!

Go buy one of those weed poppers from Ron Popeil, and STFU!

--
GO #40

Tom Jaszewski wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:55:27 GMT, "Peter H"
wrote:


And you call this good advise?
You no talent putz! there are lots of us who can manage lawns without
ANY herbicides!

http://www.cedar-grove.com/solutions...rf/default.htm
http://www.growingsolutions.com/

Where does it show how to control weeds such as spurge, oxalis,
ground ivy, speedwell, nut-sedge, crabgrass etc?

Where does it show how to control insects such as chinch bug, webworm,
cutworm, billbug larve or grubs?

Where does it show how to control lawn disease's such as red thread,
dollar spot, leaf spot, rust, brown patch etc?

Lastly, do you sell that snake oil with a straight face?

--
GO #40

"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
...
Any of you chemical advocates ever do more gardening than your own
yard?

If you read people's posts with any care you would not make such a fool out
of yourself. I Deliberately recommended AGAINST chemical fertilizers
(suggesting peat-moss instead) and AGAINST using weed or crabgrass killer on
the new lawn next spring (suggesting generous use of grass seed instead).

Some people have balanced informed views on gardening. Others are
eco-fanatics who really care nothing about any living creatures, only about
their egos and agendas.

Why not go to a church or temple of your choice and find a real religion?

"Bishop Don Magic Juan" insertnamehere.co.uk wrote

...Must wait at least seven days for Roundup to do
its work. Tilling a few hours after application competely nullifies the
purpose of Roundup.

No. If that were the case then Roundup would be rendered ineffective if it
rained or there was a heavy dew any time within a week after application.

Any type of herbicide (selective or universal) requires a few hours to soak
in. It then takes a week for the plant to die. This will happen whether the
soil is turned over or not (except of course that turning the soil over
increases the damage).

Read the instructions on the bottles. It explains it all.

Dave Gower wrote:

Some people have balanced informed views on gardening. Others are
eco-fanatics who really care nothing about any living creatures, only about
their egos and agendas.

Balanced, perhaps - informed, not very. The suggestion to use peat moss as an
organic fertilizer is indicative of a serious lack of information. The nutrient
value of peat moss is nil.

Tom's "agenda", as you put it, is to help discourage the mindless use of
chemicals to control any gardening ill. Chemically enhanced lawns (fertilizers,
weed and feeds, and other chemical pesticides) develop a dependence on those
chemicals to remain viable, requiring consistent, repeat applications and copius
amounts of irrigation to to approach even a visusal appearance of good health.

Current horticultural science tends towards a more naturalistic approach -
improving soil fertility is paramount, whether through aeration and topdressing
with compost, modest applications of bio-innoculated organically derived
fertilizers, aerated compost tea or the use of self-mulching mowers. Feed the
soil and you'll feed the plants - it is as simple as that. Eco-fanaticism has
nothing to do with it. It is a smart, practical and responsible approach to
plant husbandry, regardless of the type of plant in question. It just doesn't
feed the pocketbooks of the lawn product manufacturers or the mow, blow and go
twits who think that owning a pickup truck and a lawn mower has somehow endowed
them with any kind of horticultural knowledge.

The following rather lengthy treatise was prepared by the Seattle Public
Utilities Resource Conservation Division in conjunction with the King County
Water and Land Resources and Hazardous Waste Management Program for lawn and
turf care professionals. It references some of the leading scientific works and
publications regarding ecologically sound and sustainable turf management. This
publication surpasses the knowledge base of anyone posting at this forum and
supports EXACTLY what Tom was trying to communicate - there is NO need to rely
on chemicals to grow or maintain a lawn when other, more responsible, less
environmentally damaging and less EXPENSIVE methods are available to the average
homeowner.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/la...s/Grnlwn61.pdf

pam - gardengal

In article , Pam wrote:

Dave Gower wrote:

Some people have balanced informed views on gardening. Others are
eco-fanatics who really care nothing about any living creatures, only about
their egos and agendas.

Balanced, perhaps - informed, not very. The suggestion to use peat moss as an
organic fertilizer is indicative of a serious lack of information. The
nutrient
value of peat moss is nil.

I use peat moss for almost nothing except mixed with sand in a few buried
bog-containers for carniverous plants that want pretty much inert soil,
getting most of their nutrients from catching insects. I do, however, use
a great deal of leaf mold throughout the gardens, which is also rather
inert (certainly not rich in nitrogen), yet causes the nitrogen levels of
soils to raise.

The majority of accessible nitrogen in soils is released by bacterial
action & the amount of accessible nitrogen in composted manure, for
example, is not measurably great either -- composted manures come awfully
close to inert themselves. But the amount of organic material in the soil
defines the population of microorganisms that produce nitrogen, & to great
extent, the nitrogen content of a fertilizer is beside to the point. Also
many plants lock nitrogens into soil, taken even from the very
atmosphere, so that nitrogen-poor soils can actually be improved with no
artifical application of any compost or fertilizer of any kind, but by the
mere presence of pea-family plants, clovers, cotoneasters, or manzanitas.

As my understanding of the process comes much more from reading gardening
literature than by a deeper understanding of molecular science, I could
well have some of it wrong. But I'm fairly certain that even an "inert"
organic enrichment such as peat, by encouraging the healthful organisms
that produce nitrogen, ARE in fact adequate "fertilizers" in organically
balanced lawns, because the issue is not how well it functions as a
fertilizer, but how well it functions encouraging microorganisms that
produce nutrients of varioius kinds, bacterial release of nitrogen,
symboitoc fungal release of other plant-accessible nutrients, & so on.

An article by Christopher J. Starbuck of the University of Missouri
Department of Horticulture, "Improving Lawn & Landscape Soils" (at
muextension.missouri.edu) states that peat is as good as composted manure
as a soil enrichment for lawns, whether worked deep into the soil before
planting, or when aerating & surface-treating for improvement of soil
under established lawns. In fact, when listing possible lawn enrichments,
he places peat first, though not stating that any one surface-applied
choice is better than another, the fact that he did list peat first would
seem to have some meaning.

Many other authors seem to agree that the quality of the nutrient is NOT
in a bag of chemical ingredients, but in maintaining an organic content
that permits an extremely active microorganism population such as permit
soils to take care of their own chemical processes very naturally. If,
however, a lawn is chemicalized on a regular basis, likely the
microorganisms are very unhealthy or low in concentrations, & only then,
during such harmful lawn-care methods as have alas become "normal," an
inert enrichment would be less effective because artificially treating &
retreating the soil attempts continously to repair conditions that are
inherently second-rate. Recurring & persistant applications of all sorts
of chemical to kill the pathogens that arrive when healthful
microorganisms are killed off, to kill the plants (weeds) that are not the
selected grass, chemical tinkering to raise & lower pH in lawns so
unhealthy they cannot help but fall out of balance, to artificially
fertilize beyond any degree of necessity if organic practices had been
followed instead, to kill insect larvae that attack the typical kind of
unbalanced lawn that most suburbanite chemical-loving morons believe they
require, & to replace nutrients that are bagged & carted off by
metropolitan garbage collectors rather than mulch-mowed or composted for
recycling back in the yard. Chemical use leads to the "necessity" of
further chemical use in an endless cycle of harmful practices attempting
to repair the effects of harmful practices. And the more moronic, menacing
& horrific a lawn-putz's chemical reliance, the more certain that putz
will be that organic gardening is the province of big ego & agendas.

And of course people that squeel like little piggies about ecological
"agendas" (believing as they do that caring about the environment is
inherently skanky) never quite seem to "get it" -- that an agenda to
promote safer, cleaner, more wholesome gardening practices is vastly to be
preferred over the harmful agenda to remain chemical-reliant consumers of
needless products, the accumulative effect of which have been proven to be
doing ongoing harm to the environment, often harming even the immediate
environment of lawn or garden their chemical-reliant habits purport to
assist. For THAT agenda "Buy, Consume, Die" becomes "Buy into the
PetroChemical Agenda, Toxify Everything In Sight, & Die a Cancerous
Festering Death Twenty Years Sooner Than Was Otherwise Necessary."

Your commentary below I quite admired.

-paghat the ratgirl

Tom's "agenda", as you put it, is to help discourage the mindless use of
chemicals to control any gardening ill. Chemically enhanced lawns
(fertilizers,
weed and feeds, and other chemical pesticides) develop a dependence on those
chemicals to remain viable, requiring consistent, repeat applications
and copius
amounts of irrigation to to approach even a visusal appearance of good health.

Current horticultural science tends towards a more naturalistic approach -
improving soil fertility is paramount, whether through aeration and
topdressing
with compost, modest applications of bio-innoculated organically derived
fertilizers, aerated compost tea or the use of self-mulching mowers. Feed the
soil and you'll feed the plants - it is as simple as that. Eco-fanaticism has
nothing to do with it. It is a smart, practical and responsible approach to
plant husbandry, regardless of the type of plant in question. It just doesn't
feed the pocketbooks of the lawn product manufacturers or the mow, blow and go
twits who think that owning a pickup truck and a lawn mower has somehow
endowed
them with any kind of horticultural knowledge.

The following rather lengthy treatise was prepared by the Seattle Public
Utilities Resource Conservation Division in conjunction with the King County
Water and Land Resources and Hazardous Waste Management Program for lawn and
turf care professionals. It references some of the leading scientific
works and
publications regarding ecologically sound and sustainable turf
management. This
publication surpasses the knowledge base of anyone posting at this forum and
supports EXACTLY what Tom was trying to communicate - there is NO need to rely
on chemicals to grow or maintain a lawn when other, more responsible, less
environmentally damaging and less EXPENSIVE methods are available to the
average
homeowner.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/la...s/Grnlwn61.pdf

pam - gardengal

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

pwr wrote in message ...
wrote:
Tom Jaszewski wrote:

On 08 Sep 2003 00:54:06 GMT, wrote:


(paghat) wrote:

-paghat the ratgirl


Your crotch smells like limburger cheese.

Now Steve, you'll be alright...


So long as I stay away from ratgirl-rottencrotch.. ;-P


top posting blowhard..?
ratgirl..?
limburger cheese crotch..?
ratgirl-rottencrotch..?

hmmmm..
And I thought small children only played on lawns but weren't actually
able to own and care for said lawns..

paul

Kids who play in their sugar-daddies' heavily chemicalized suburban
lawns tend to suffer from brain damage.

-paggers

(paghat) wrote:
pwr wrote in message
...
wrote:
Tom Jaszewski wrote:

On 08 Sep 2003 00:54:06 GMT, wrote:


(paghat) wrote:

-paghat the ratgirl


Your crotch smells like limburger cheese.

Now Steve, you'll be alright...


So long as I stay away from ratgirl-rottencrotch.. ;-P


top posting blowhard..?
ratgirl..?
limburger cheese crotch..?
ratgirl-rottencrotch..?

hmmmm..
And I thought small children only played on lawns but weren't actually
able to own and care for said lawns..

paul

Kids who play in their sugar-daddies' heavily chemicalized suburban
lawns tend to suffer from brain damage.

Maybe it's the rat poison, I love watching those little *******s
croak slowly from strychnine or some such sweetness. 8-0

--
GO #40

paghat wrote:

In article , Pam wrote:

Dave Gower wrote:

Some people have balanced informed views on gardening. Others are
eco-fanatics who really care nothing about any living creatures, only about
their egos and agendas.

Balanced, perhaps - informed, not very. The suggestion to use peat moss as an
organic fertilizer is indicative of a serious lack of information. The
nutrient
value of peat moss is nil.

As my understanding of the process comes much more from reading gardening
literature than by a deeper understanding of molecular science, I could
well have some of it wrong. But I'm fairly certain that even an "inert"
organic enrichment such as peat, by encouraging the healthful organisms
that produce nitrogen, ARE in fact adequate "fertilizers" in organically
balanced lawns, because the issue is not how well it functions as a
fertilizer, but how well it functions encouraging microorganisms that
produce nutrients of varioius kinds, bacterial release of nitrogen,
symboitoc fungal release of other plant-accessible nutrients, & so on.

I understand the point you are making and I think it is more a matter of semantics
rather a difference of opinion. The term "fertilizer" is typically used to refer to
an outside source of plant nutrient requirements - other than those found naturally
occurring in the soil - and usually one which offers a ready supply of one of the
big 3. As I understand your interpretation, peat, while it has virtually no
remaining nitrogen content, would qualify as a fertilizer because it certainly makes
the environment more hospitable to those organisms which generate nitrogen as a
byproduct of their existence and thus provide this necessary plant nutrient.

One can reasonably argue that all organic soil amendments can be looked at in this
fashion - all offer some, typically very limited nutrient value. Their true value is
in their ability to improve soil fertility and tilth by providing organic matter and
thus hosting increased populations of soil organisms, increasing pore space and
improving drainage. While peat may have no significant nutrient value - less than 1%
nitrogen, no phosphorus and minimal potassium - the same can be said of composted
hog, cow, poultry or steer manure. Christopher Starbuck was right on in his
statement that peat is equally as good as steer manure for soil enrichment, but
neither one does much in the way of providing supplemental nutrients, specially the
nitrogen which most turf soils lack. Personally, I'd find peat less efficient than
composted manure as an organic lawn topdressing because of its difficulty in
rewetting once it has dried out, the slowness with which it further decomposes and
its tendency to decrease soil pH, something which further defeats the purpose of
growing a healthy lawn.



Your commentary below I quite admired.

-paghat the ratgirl

Thank you.
pam - gardengal

paghat wrote:

In article , Pam wrote:

Dave Gower wrote:

Some people have balanced informed views on gardening. Others are
eco-fanatics who really care nothing about any living creatures, only about
their egos and agendas.

Balanced, perhaps - informed, not very. The suggestion to use peat moss as an
organic fertilizer is indicative of a serious lack of information. The
nutrient
value of peat moss is nil.

As my understanding of the process comes much more from reading gardening
literature than by a deeper understanding of molecular science, I could
well have some of it wrong. But I'm fairly certain that even an "inert"
organic enrichment such as peat, by encouraging the healthful organisms
that produce nitrogen, ARE in fact adequate "fertilizers" in organically
balanced lawns, because the issue is not how well it functions as a
fertilizer, but how well it functions encouraging microorganisms that
produce nutrients of varioius kinds, bacterial release of nitrogen,
symboitoc fungal release of other plant-accessible nutrients, & so on.

I understand the point you are making and I think it is more a matter of semantics
rather a difference of opinion. The term "fertilizer" is typically used to refer to
an outside source of plant nutrient requirements - other than those found naturally
occurring in the soil - and usually one which offers a ready supply of one of the
big 3. As I understand your interpretation, peat, while it has virtually no
remaining nitrogen content, would qualify as a fertilizer because it certainly makes
the environment more hospitable to those organisms which generate nitrogen as a
byproduct of their existence and thus provide this necessary plant nutrient.

One can reasonably argue that all organic soil amendments can be looked at in this
fashion - all offer some, typically very limited nutrient value. Their true value is
in their ability to improve soil fertility and tilth by providing organic matter and
thus hosting increased populations of soil organisms, increasing pore space and
improving drainage. While peat may have no significant nutrient value - less than 1%
nitrogen, no phosphorus and minimal potassium - the same can be said of composted
hog, cow, poultry or steer manure. Christopher Starbuck was right on in his
statement that peat is equally as good as steer manure for soil enrichment, but
neither one does much in the way of providing supplemental nutrients, specially the
nitrogen which most turf soils lack. Personally, I'd find peat less efficient than
composted manure as an organic lawn topdressing because of its difficulty in
rewetting once it has dried out, the slowness with which it further decomposes and
its tendency to decrease soil pH, something which further defeats the purpose of
growing a healthy lawn.



Your commentary below I quite admired.

-paghat the ratgirl

Thank you.
pam - gardengal

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:55:02 -0400, "Dave Gower"
wrote:


"Tom Jaszewski" wrote in message
.. .
Any of you chemical advocates ever do more gardening than your own
yard?

If you read people's posts with any care you would not make such a fool out
of yourself. I Deliberately recommended AGAINST chemical fertilizers
(suggesting peat-moss instead) and AGAINST using weed or crabgrass killer on
the new lawn next spring (suggesting generous use of grass seed instead).

Some people have balanced informed views on gardening. Others are
eco-fanatics who really care nothing about any living creatures, only about
their egos and agendas.

Why not go to a church or temple of your choice and find a real religion?

I CAREFULLY READ THE MISINFORMATION IN YOUR POST!

"Wouldn't hurt to hit the weeds with Roundup before you rototill. Wait
a few hours after you spray before tilling."

Advice totally contrary to the labeled use! Eco fanatic means not
using poisons and advising people who do to carefully follow the
labeled instruction? WTF planet are you on man! Balanced views about
poisoning the soil for our grandchildren. Did you read what yor
Canadian wheat board had to say about Roundup?

Yes I have an agenda, sustainable gardens and nutritious food.