PDA

View Full Version : Corn Gluten Data??


upidstay
05-31-2007, 03:21 PM
Does anybody have, or know of, any university studies done on Corn Gluten as a pre-emergant?

Not really interested in anybody's personal experiences with it, just hard, empirical data done at a university.

Thanks

Nathan Robinson
05-31-2007, 03:37 PM
Purdue did one. Two State chemists ago from there was actually the guy who discovered this. It has the longest effect for pre-m activity.
www.entm.purdue.edu

timturf
05-31-2007, 06:10 PM
Came out of Iowa state U, so they must have plenty of data...research

But why would you use cgm for crab control on cool season turfgrass... I've believe you need 20-40lbs/m for several years to get somewhere like 80% control, and with the nitrogen content at 10%, man, that's alot of spring n, in fact more n than I apply in one complete season

Now warm season turfgrass, would be an option

americanlawn
05-31-2007, 09:22 PM
Hi upidstay........corn gluten meal has been tested for years here at Iowa State where it was originally developed. We attend their annual "field day", and they test several pre-emergent products annualy. Bottom line: corn glutten meal is expensive and is no more effective than pre-M, Barricade, Dimension, etc. You can tap on to Iowa State University and find out their field test results, but I personally do not recommend corn gluten meal. Sounds nice, but............

Prolawnservice
05-31-2007, 09:56 PM
Came out of Iowa state U, so they must have plenty of data...research

But why would you use cgm for crab control on cool season turfgrass... I've believe you need 20-40lbs/m for several years to get somewhere like 80% control, and with the nitrogen content at 10%, man, that's alot of spring n, in fact more n than I apply in one complete season

Now warm season turfgrass, would be an option

But its organic spring N, slower release, no or little salt content, you shouldn't get the same disease pressure using organic N as you would putting down 2-4 lbs of synthetic N. The real drawback is the price IMO, especially for the labeled product.

NattyLawn
05-31-2007, 10:07 PM
But its organic spring N, slower release, no or little salt content, you shouldn't get the same disease pressure using organic N as you would putting down 2-4 lbs of synthetic N. The real drawback is the price IMO, especially for the labeled product.

Too much N is Tim's sticking point regarding CGM. It's all slow release and is a metered process.

Check out some threads from early '06 regarding CGM. It hurts for me to re-read some of the crap I posted.

americanlawn
05-31-2007, 10:14 PM
Organic means nothing in respect to safety. In fact, it is dead wrong. "Natural organics" commonly contain contaminants that most people do not know about. Natural organics require more product, often smell bad, are usually more costly, and contain contaminents & viral organisms. The "good-doers" with lawns full of creeping Charlie do not know about nature like they would like you to know -- otherwise they would use the most advanced product they could get they hands on.

Prolawnservice
05-31-2007, 11:25 PM
umm... ok american, why don't you tell me how you really feel, no seriously don't hold back.
lol...
I would like to get a response from Tim, so I can understand his position better. Natty I read all that stuff a couple years ago, I didn't agree with it then, but I kept out of it to see where it went, however I'm intrigued if that is what Tim is thinking, that disease pressure would be a problem.

NattyLawn
06-01-2007, 07:59 AM
Organic means nothing in respect to safety. In fact, it is dead wrong. "Natural organics" commonly contain contaminants that most people do not know about. Natural organics require more product, often smell bad, are usually more costly, and contain contaminents & viral organisms. The "good-doers" with lawns full of creeping Charlie do not know about nature like they would like you to know -- otherwise they would use the most advanced product they could get they hands on.


Please get off your high horse and do some research. The fertilizer industry is heavily regulated and if organic fert contained contaminants something would be done about it. As far as safety goes, nothing is 100% safe. The fact that you bring that up shows that you need to do some research.

Funny you bring up nature or natural and creeping charlie. Where is it natural to have a 100% weed free lawn?

As abrasive as NathanRobinson was when he first got here, it looks like he's right about alot of the 30 year experience guys. You rely on your experience and defense from other members rather than on what you know. You still have the same opinions on stuff from 20 years ago. Organics are bad and contain viral diseases. Come on. Adapt with the times and learn something new. I forgot, you switched to Chaser Ultra II and can't kill small braodleafs with the PG Ultra!

I'd like to say Congrats to am-lawn on becoming a senior member! It only took 400 of the same post over and over again!

I'm sure this post will be edited or deleted, but some of this (including some of my own posts) is ridiculous.

timturf
06-01-2007, 08:34 AM
Organic means nothing in respect to safety. In fact, it is dead wrong. "Natural organics" commonly contain contaminants that most people do not know about. Natural organics require more product, often smell bad, are usually more costly, and contain contaminents & viral organisms. The "good-doers" with lawns full of creeping Charlie do not know about nature like they would like you to know -- otherwise they would use the most advanced product they could get they hands on.

Some die hard organic user won't use some bio solids due to the heavy metal content that may be present in some of them

Yes, My program does use organic fert and sythetic fert....usually called bridged or fortified organic

Pro lawn....More on my position on nitrogen later

Nathan Robinson
06-01-2007, 02:13 PM
OMG! This is funny. Metal content in blood? get tested and use a metal cleanse. Lets see....dandelion root and rose hip cleanses the body of metal. When it comes to the safety of Organics compared to pesticides, Organics is setting the standard. Organics does not cause cancer, liver and thyroid enlargement, fainting, and the list goes on and on. Corn Gluten was discovered by accident by a State chemist in Indiana almost 35 years ago when they were using it as a organic N fertilizer on a golf course and when they reseeded the course nothing came up the next year. Just goes to show how long these enzymes last in the soil. When applied at the proper rate it has almost 4 lbs. of N per K. Thats enough for the year. People tend to apply this pre-m like a chemical and use it in the spring. It has a residual effect and should be applied in fall as next years pre-m and as a N for the winterizer. It will use the N for Storage for quick spring green up the following year. The most advanced products are the ones that work with Nature and send the soil in the right direction. Why is it the Omish people have the best yields year after year with little disease and they have such low cancer and live longer. There fertilizers are organic should be the bell ringing in your head....... Not all organics are good for the soil. Feather meal, Bone meal, blood meal are terrible for the soil but good only because its a natural fertilizer. It sends the soil in the wrong direction. Anyhow, the question was a University that studied this product. Purdue..

Prolawnservice
06-01-2007, 05:08 PM
Some die hard organic user won't use some bio solids due to the heavy metal content that may be present in some of them

Yes, My program does use organic fert and sythetic fert....usually called bridged or fortified organic

Pro lawn....More on my position on nitrogen later

bio-solids are a great fertilizer, and a good way to recycle, but they have their place, and a home lawn that is used by children and pets is not the place, it's not so much the metal contamination, because now it is primarily non existent, they can track heavy metals easily and divert the flow from that pipe follow it up to the source and fine the offenders. The concern with bio-solids and people is pharmaceuticals peoples random medicines, household cleaners, and misc chemical fluids, flushed down the toilet/drain. Not viruses or bacteria, the stuff is cooked, practically turned into ash, but the random chemicals that can't be filtered out form different compounds when heated and remain (albeit in minute quantities) in the finished product. So true organic residential programs where people will be on the lawn should not include bio-solids.

Prolawnservice
06-01-2007, 05:13 PM
FYI,the Amish use tons of chemicals, tons. They are just now (past couple years) looking to get away from using pesticides.

Nathan Robinson
06-01-2007, 05:37 PM
Weird, I buy my fertilizers from the Amish and they use none here with great results. They use SP1 and have been for years. Are you sure your not mistaking the Amish with the Muslims????

upidstay
06-02-2007, 12:09 PM
Sheesh, all I wanted was a link or two to a study...

NattyLawn
06-02-2007, 02:07 PM
http://www.gluten.iastate.edu/

You can follow a ton of links off of ^^^

www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/proceedings/4C.stier.pdf

Neal Wolbert
06-03-2007, 03:16 AM
Check out this site... http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/ and click on the "horticultural myths" link. You'll find lots of interesting info there including some on CGM. Also Dr. Tom Cook from Oregon State presented a study of CGM as a pre that showed no effect at all. I viewed the presentation myself and it quite convincingly showed that CGM grew much more healthy weeds than the check patch. As an N source it is really spendy and has some nasty traits like attracting pets and wildlife. Dr. Nick Christians work at Ohio State showed promise but he ground his own CGM. The product Dr. Cook used was off the shelf retail and not fresh ground. He admitted that may have made a difference but who wants to go to that much trouble and expense? And then the question of applying a non-registered product as a pesticide would be a concern.
Neal