Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Lawn; Thinking of starting from scratch
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/ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lawn from scratch | Gardening | |||
starting from scratch | North Carolina | |||
Lawn; Thinking of starting from scratch | Gardening | |||
Ideas for starting from scratch? | United Kingdom | |||
OK, scratch dry insecticide, do you know what type of rose this is? | Roses |