This year I have been overrun with clover in the lawn.
What is the best way to get rid?

In message , Howard
Neil writes
Japmark wrote:

This year I have been overrun with clover in the lawn.

You are fortunate. The clover will fix nitrogen from the air and save
you from having to apply fertilizer.

The benefit to the grass is minimal. To get rid of clover use a liquid
lawn weed killer such as Verdone. For application see the label on the
bottle. ( Note Verdone extra only one application per season. Once
you've got it down to manageable proportions you can use apply as
required with a spray bottle. Within a couple of seasons your lawn will
be essentially weed free and then you will only need occasional
application, unless of course you have the misfortune to live adjacent
to someone who likes to grow every wed possible in their lawn.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In article , Douglas
writes
Sack immediately all the green-keepers of the Ancient Scottish golf courses
plus those 'wilderness' putting greens in
Georgia U.S,of A. Also the groundsmen who dug the hole at the penalty spot
and put our national Team out of the competition. (Don't blame that bloke
with the hideous tattoo across his neck , - he wuz robbed!)
They've All got it all wrong! (:^)

Perhaps they should have tried 4-leaved clover?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

Kay wrote in message ...
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
[...]
[Kay:] I'm prepared to accept a need for fertiliser application for food
production. But it's not something I want to do for purely recreational
purposes.
[...]
[Hugh:] The levels of nutrients in our waterways come from agriculture,
precisely the use of fertilisers of which you approve, or at least you
accept.

No - I'm prepared to accept if it is necessary. I've not made my mind
up on that.

Well go away and decide what you mean b4 going into print.

I meant precisely what I said. I'm sorry that I didn't say what you
wanted me to say in order to suit your attack.

No need to apologize: he can manage perfectly well without accurate data.

Mike.

hugh wrote:

In message ,
Howard Neil writes

hugh wrote:

In message ,
Howard Neil writes

Japmark wrote:

This year I have been overrun with clover in the lawn.



You are fortunate. The clover will fix nitrogen from the air and
save you from having to apply fertilizer.

The benefit to the grass is minimal.


That is not the experience of livestock farmers who deliberately sow
clover in their grass fields. See:-

They don't feed graze their livestock on lawns - at least not deliberately.

Maybe not but the effect of nitrogen fixing is the same. The point is
that it is more economical to buy and sow clover seed than fertilizer.

A lot depends on the desired effect of course but there seems to be an
automatic desire to remove clover from lawns with no consideration to
the benefits. It is as if there is a presumption that clover is bad for
a lawn.

I have clover both in my fields and in my lawn. I need to occasionally
add farmyard manure to the fields to help support livestock but I have
yet to add any fertilizer of any description to my lawn and the grass is
in excellent condition.

--
Howard Neil

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the diversity
of
the countryside?


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for recreational
purposes could not be justified, for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.

"BAC" wrote in message t...
"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
In article , hugh
] writes

OK, the OP doesn't want a wildflower meadow. But the more we encourage
a
style of gardening dependent on high levels of fertiliser, the more we
contribute to high levels of nutrient in our wild countryside and in
our
waterways, which is damaging the diversity of our countryside.

snip

Gardens and countryside are intermixed,
waterways go through both. Your personal use of fertiliser may not have
much effect, but I was talking about an overall philosophy of gardening
which regards regular fertiliser, pesticide and weedkiller use as a
necessity. If you read what I said, I was suggesting that a dislike of
this approach might be why people were suggesting that a pure grass lawn
was not necessarily to be desired.

If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the diversity of
the countryside?

Kay has spoken sensibly for herself; but it's my philosophy, too.
Isn't it impressive how far some athletic readers can jump from
'...suggesting...might be...suggesting that a pure xxx was not
necessarily to be desired'? Your middle name must be Tarzan!

Of _course_ I wouldn't plant alien species which I knew were likely to
establish themselves in numbers in the wild, or interbreed with native
species: I hope you aren't suggesting that _you would_.

But I'll admit that I'm worried by those quotation marks you put round
'damaging': they're not entirely promising. And I don't quite know
what to expect from one who's prepared to drop that unexplained
'including most clovers' into the discussion, so I'm on my guard for
sophistry!

Mike.

In article , BAC
writes


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for recreational
purposes could not be justified,

I don't think I said that it could not be justified. I think I said it
was something I did not want to do.

for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.


I think you are assuming too much and not reading carefully enough.
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:22:54 +0100, Howard Neil
wrote:


That is not the experience of livestock farmers who deliberately sow
clover in their grass fields. See:-


http://www.dpw.wageningen-ur.nl/biob/EDUCAT/msc302.htm

Shum mishtake? The motivation for spraying manure on fields in NL is
that just the pig industry produces enough crap to cover the whole of
the Netherlands in 3" of pig crap per annum.

Enjoy your bacon.
--
Martin

In message , Mike Lyle
writes
Kay wrote in message
...
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
[...]
[Kay:] I'm prepared to accept a need for fertiliser application for food
production. But it's not something I want to do for purely recreational
purposes.
[...]
[Hugh:] The levels of nutrients in our waterways come from agriculture,
precisely the use of fertilisers of which you approve, or at least you
accept.

No - I'm prepared to accept if it is necessary. I've not made my mind
up on that.

Well go away and decide what you mean b4 going into print.

I meant precisely what I said. I'm sorry that I didn't say what you
wanted me to say in order to suit your attack.

No need to apologize: he can manage perfectly well without accurate data.

Mike.
Eh? What inaccuracy have I used?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , Kay
writes
In article , hugh
] writes
In message , Kay
writes
In article , hugh
] writes

OK, the OP doesn't want a wildflower meadow. But the more we encourage a
style of gardening dependent on high levels of fertiliser, the more we
contribute to high levels of nutrient in our wild countryside and in our
waterways, which is damaging the diversity of our countryside.

I'm prepared to accept a need for fertiliser application for food
production. But it's not something I want to do for purely recreational
purposes.
What high levels of fertiliser? So far this year, one dose in the spring
of fertiliser/moss killer/weed killer and that's it apart from 1/2 ton
of horticultural sharp sand. Oh yes and one squirt of spot weed killer
to remove a piece of clover which presumably had blown in from someone
else's weed patch.

Well, that's still more than I use ;-)

But hardly "high level", and not affecting the levels of nutrient in our
wild countryside and in our waterways as you alleged, so please withdraw
you comment.

Of course it affects it. Gardens and countryside are intermixed,
waterways go through both. Your personal use of fertiliser may not have
much effect, but I was talking about an overall philosophy of gardening
which regards regular fertiliser, pesticide and weedkiller use as a
necessity. If you read what I said, I was suggesting that a dislike of
this approach might be why people were suggesting that a pure grass lawn
was not necessarily to be desired. I did not in my original post comment
on your personal use of fertilisers.

The levels of nutrients in our waterways come from agriculture,
precisely the use of fertilisers of which you approve, or at least you
accept.

No - I'm prepared to accept if it is necessary. I've not made my mind
up on that.
Well go away and decide what you mean b4 going into print.

I meant precisely what I said. I'm sorry that I didn't say what you
wanted me to say in order to suit your attack.

Trouble is what you said wasn't very precise.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the diversity
of
the countryside?


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for recreational
purposes could not be justified, for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.


I think he actually wants to dictate where everyone's line is drawn. As
far as I am concerned, the only studies I have ever seen on the subject
of excess nutrients in waterways have laid the blame firmly at the door
of agriculture. If someone can produce evidence to the contrary or scale
the level of damage due to *excess* use in domestic gardening I may
change my position. Until then I will continue to use modest amounts of
fertiliser and weedkillers on the area of grass in front of my house to
maintain it as I like it.

Incidentally, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use pesticides on a
lawn.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

hugh wrote:


Incidentally, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use pesticides on a lawn.

Really? Why then did you advise the OP "To get rid of clover use a
liquid lawn weed killer such as Verdone"

Weed killer is a pesticide.


--
Howard Neil

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens
and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was
enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for
recreational
purposes could not be justified,

I don't think I said that it could not be justified. I think I said it
was something I did not want to do.

It seemed to me you had been implying you did not consider use of pesticides
and chemical fertilisers for frivolous purposes was justifiable. If that is
not the case, I stand corrected.


for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your
own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in
the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line
on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.


I think you are assuming too much and not reading carefully enough.

LOL. I hope what I wrote served its purpose.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , BAC
writes

"Kay" wrote in message
...
In article , BAC
writes


If that is your philosophy, then, presumably, you are also careful not
to
grow in your garden any alien or hybrid plants (including most
clovers)
which might escape into the wild, hence risking 'damaging' the
diversity
of
the countryside?


You seem to be saying that, unless one embraces a totally 'green'
lifestyle, one should encourage a total disregard for the environment.

I certainly did not say that, nor did I imply it. You said that gardens
and
nature were interlinked and implied that gardeners should not act in a
manner which put at risk the 'diversity of our countryside'. I was
enquiring
whether your belief that use of fertilisers and pesticides for
recreational
purposes could not be justified, for that reason, also extended to the
growing of non-native plants for recreational purposes.

Although you did not directly answer my question, I assume from your
response the answer is no, it doesn't.

I also assume from your response that you feel entitled to exercise your
own
judgement as to what is and what is not reasonable for you to forego in
the
name of preservation of 'the environment', and that you might resent your
decision in the matter being criticised by people who draw their own line
on
the subject in a different place. Rightly so, IMO.


I think he actually wants to dictate where everyone's line is drawn. As
far as I am concerned, the only studies I have ever seen on the subject
of excess nutrients in waterways have laid the blame firmly at the door
of agriculture. If someone can produce evidence to the contrary or scale
the level of damage due to *excess* use in domestic gardening I may
change my position. Until then I will continue to use modest amounts of
fertiliser and weedkillers on the area of grass in front of my house to
maintain it as I like it.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and responsible to me. It's your garden, and you
have the right to make up your own mind about what you want to grow there
and how you should maintain it. Even 'conservation' organisations like the
Woodland Trust make judicious use of weedkiller in their woodlands.


Incidentally, I can't imagine anyone wanting to use pesticides on a
lawn.

Sorry about that - I use the term 'pesticides' to include herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, etc. I don't think I'm alone in that, but
apologise for any confusion. In this context, I meant weedkiller,
specifically one not fatal to lawn grass.