PDA

View Full Version : Corn Gluten


rugmankc
08-30-2008, 06:43 PM
Sorry if this is posted anywhere. I did a search and looked backed aways, no luck.

But, what does everyone think about using corn gluten for weed conrol? My son's organic lawn company wants to start using this.

What's an appropriate price per yard sf.



Thanks,

Ken

ICT Bill
08-30-2008, 06:51 PM
Corn has been on a roller coaster ride as far as prices go. As companies go thru stock the new price might be a lot higher (like everything else these days), it is a byproduct of corn processing and is typically less expensive but it still may go up

The peptides in CGM are excellent as a pre-M there is a ton of information at the university of Iowa who patented CGM as a pre-M, just go to their site and search on corn gluten meal. It was patented in 1992 so there is a long list of third party studies

Our company will have a liquid corn gluten meal product out in about a month, just in time for spring south of interstate 10

DeepGreenLawn
08-30-2008, 06:51 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

and that is your cost... then you mark it up for the treatment... good luck...

personally, pre-ms are where synthetic chems come into play, but only with a starter lawn... a good thick lawn, I have one customer with one, will keep weeds out. I didn't touch a customers lawn with anything she had 10 weeds the whole year? Front yard, side yard was thinner and has crabgrass pretty bad but not horrible, and I knew that was going to happen... price to pay...

my own opinion of course, that is what I have found...

treegal1
08-31-2008, 10:18 AM
corn , boo hiss, boooooooo. for that amount of money you can pay to hand weed

growingdeeprootsorganicly
08-31-2008, 11:16 AM
. for that amount of money you can pay to hand weed


.....dido!!!

jeffinsgf
08-31-2008, 12:40 PM
... there is a ton of information at the university of Iowa who patented CGM as a pre-M, just go to their site and search on corn gluten meal. It was patented in 1992 so there is a long list of third party studies...

It's Iowa State University, not the University of Iowa. Different institutions.

rugmankc
08-31-2008, 01:28 PM
Thanks for all the replies,


The money won't be an issue, not even sure what the price is.

Main concern was it's effectiveness with stopping new weeds. I understand it won't kill the ones that are there now. They have organic apps and aerate and over seed once a year.

Other concern was if this type of treatment takes a few years to see benefits, it might be a waste of money, since they may not be in the house in two years. But, still want to maintain the yard. Even if it is only for cosmetics and resale.


Thanks,

Ken

rugmankc
08-31-2008, 01:49 PM
Did some research from Iowa State U. and the web.

Sounds like unless you have the money and at least several years in the house, it is not worth the money.



Thanks,

Ken

ICT Bill
09-06-2008, 12:26 PM
It's Iowa State University, not the University of Iowa. Different institutions.

thanks Jeff I said that wrong, go here
http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/


Did some research from Iowa State U. and the web.

Sounds like unless you have the money and at least several years in the house, it is not worth the money.

rugmankc, I am not sure what you mean by that. CGM is a pretty effective tool

DeepGreenLawn
09-06-2008, 12:43 PM
the research typically says that to have a proper dependable response from CGM the product has to be applied over time to build up whatever chem is in it in the soil.

And it's expensive...

ICT Bill
09-06-2008, 02:03 PM
Have you read the instructions on all pre-M's, it says the very same thing

Inexpensive is what you meant to say, how much does it cost to fertilize and put down Pre-M at the same time??????? maybe comparable is a better word

rugmankc
09-06-2008, 03:26 PM
the research typically says that to have a proper dependable response from CGM the product has to be applied over time to build up whatever chem is in it in the soil.

And it's expensive...


Yea, that's what I meant. lol

The articles left me with the impression you had to be careful to get the real stuff and application timing was critical. They definitely seemed to be saying it was not worth the money if only two years left in the house. That was because of price and needing a few seasons to see good results. I don't know if enough companies use it yet to prove or disprove my assumptions. I don't really know. My son isn't sure of how long he will be the house, so a tough decision.


Thanks,

Ken

growingdeeprootsorganicly
09-06-2008, 03:52 PM
Inexpensive is what you meant to say, how much does it cost to fertilize and put down Pre-M at the same time??????? maybe comparable is a better word

apples to oranges,
are you talking chem pre'm+fert? to cgm?
there's no comparison in price, not even close!

50lbs cgm covers? 2-4 thou sf? maybe? at 30-50$ a bag

chem prem+fert covers over 10000sf + for 30. a bag

sorry if i miss understood what your saying

DeepGreenLawn
09-06-2008, 05:15 PM
apples to oranges,
are you talking chem pre'm+fert? to cgm?
there's no comparison in price, not even close!

50lbs cgm covers? 2-4 thou sf? maybe? at 30-50$ a bag

chem prem+fert covers over 10000sf + for 30. a bag

sorry if i miss understood what your saying

I think he is saying if you bought the two seperate. But like you said, you have to put down so much CGM to get proper coverage and results that putting it down alone seems to be unpracticle. This is the time where I say if it is needed that synthetic chems have their place. Unless someone can show me otherwise...

NattyLawn
09-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Maybe Bill hasn't priced CGM vs. say 10-4-2 with Cavalcade, but you would need 4 times the product to apply to a 10k lawn. 5lbs. vs 20lbs. per k.= 4 times the product.

They say it takes 3 years to build up the natural enzyme in the soil to make CGM 80-85% effective. If you scalp your lawn and ***** up your edges, you will get less control as the CGM can't handle that scalping. If you mow around 3 inches (on cool season turf) throughout the year, you generally will be ok. If you have Scalpers Inc mowing at 2 inches every week and have edging that looks like kids coloring couldn't quite stay inside the lines, then the chemical option might be best for you. I'd love to apply CGM to all my lawns, but it's not practical in some situations, including larger lawns. I already have to go over lawns twice and I'm using a PG Magnum. I couldn't imagine pushing lawns twice with a conventional spreader.

Kiril
09-07-2008, 10:53 AM
They say it takes 3 years to build up the natural enzyme in the soil to make CGM 80-85% effective.

Who says this? Is this enzyme resistant to microbial decomposition? Is the enzyme a component of CGM, or is it a microbial byproduct produced during decomposition? Is this enzyme the controlling component/compound, or is it a catalyst? If it is the controlling component/compound, would it not also deter traditional lawn renovation practices (eg. over seeding)?

Compost does a soil good!

ICT Bill
09-07-2008, 10:57 AM
Who says this? Is this enzyme resistant to microbial decomposition? Is the enzyme a component of CGM, or is it a microbial byproduct produced during decomposition? Is this enzyme the controlling component/compound, or is it a catalyst? If it is the controlling component/compound, would it not also deter traditional lawn renovation practices (eg. over seeding)?

Compost does a soil good!

It is the peptides in the CGM that actually makes it work as a Pre-M. You can get very close to chemical % of control in the first year. It typically has a 10 to 12 week control period

In zone 7 where I am you could put it down in March and again in June and then overseed in September or October and no issues with germination

Kiril
09-07-2008, 11:53 AM
It is the peptides in the CGM that actually makes it work as a Pre-M. You can get very close to chemical % of control in the first year. It typically has a 10 to 12 week control period

Yes Bill. From the second ISU link posted below.

A Petri dish bioassay was used to test the root-inhibiting
activity. Five bioactive dipeptides were isolated by using
Sephadex G-15 gel filtration, solid-phase extraction, and
C18 reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography
procedures. The five dipeptides were glutaminyl-glutamine,
alaninyl-asparagine, alaninylglutamine, glycinyl-alanine,
and alaninyl-alanine.

Studies/Articles On Corn Gluten As A Pre-emergent


PATENT: Updated patent (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/290757.pdf)

ISU: Greenhouse Screening of Corn Gluten Meal as a Natural Control Product for Broadleaf and Grass Weeds (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/grnhsechr.pdf)

ISU: Isolation and Identification of Root-Inhibiting Compounds from Corn. Gluten Hydrolysate (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/isolation.pdf)

ISU: Making its way to the marketplace: A natural product for the control of annual weeds (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut2.pdf)

ISU: Bioactivity of a Pentapeptide Isolated from Corn Gluten Hydrolysate on Lolium perenne L. (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/bioactiv.pdf)

ISU: Herbicidal Activity of Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten Meal on Three Grass Species under Controlled Environments (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/herbicidal.pdf)

ISU: The Use Of A Natural Product For The Control Of Annual Weeds In Turf (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut.pdf)

ISU: A natural product for the control of annual weeds (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut2.pdf) (Note: more or less same as previous link)

ISU: The Use of Corn Gluten Meal As A Natural Preemergence Weed Control in Turf (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut3.pdf)

ISU: How To Use Corn Gluten Meal (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/how-to-use-corn-gluten-meal.pdf)

ISU: Cellular effects in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) associated. with the root inhibiting compound alaninyl-alanine (http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/Unruh_thesis.pdf)

UCD: Evaluation and Demonstration of Corn Gluten Meal as an Organic Herbicide (http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/freeform/slosson/documents/1999-20002063.pdf)

UWEX: Corn Gluten Meal: A Natural Pre-Emergence Herbicide (http://www.extension.umn.edu/yardandgarden/ygbriefs/h531cornglutenmeal.html)


Studies/Articles On Natural Products & Methods For Weed Control


UWEX: Corn Gluten Meal and Other Natural Products for Weed Control in Turfgrass (http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/proceedings/4C.stier.pdf)

UFL: Preliminary Evaluation Of Nonsynthetic Herbicides For Weed Management In Organic Orange Production (http://www.hos.ufl.edu/cachweb/FSHS_2004.pdf)

JA-CSSPA: Weed Suppression by Deleterious Rhizobacteria is Affected by Formulation and Soil Properties (http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/36221500/cswq-0214-147110.pdf)

JA-CS: Cultural Management of Weeds in Turfgrass: A Review (http://crop.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/43/6/1899.pdf)

PATENT: Xanthomonas campestris isolates and methods of use (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5271932.html)

grassman177
03-27-2009, 03:23 PM
kiril. that was the most perfect information. thanks so much. i was dealing with this dilema today in fact and found your post very relative. than ks man!!!!!!

HayBay
03-27-2009, 07:32 PM
Natty, I agree with the PermaGreen and 2+ times the travel to spread CGM right. We use a peletized compost (no weed seeds, high organic matter content) and I am doing 3 laps to spread enough product out to cover the property.

bicmudpuppy
03-28-2009, 12:01 AM
Wow, and I thought this forum was relatively tame :) The season starts up and the debate gets HOT.

Someone said apples to oranges..........
If the 10%N w/ Pre-M product covers 10,000'sq, how much actual fert are you getting down? This is math I KNOW. Even a 20% product covering 10-15,000'sq doesn't amount to squat as fert. The jury is still out in my mind on cost vs effectiveness, but if we were to concede that CGM at the university recommended rates works, then you have to figure enough N to match 2#N/m. If your in a long grow season and need the split app, your putting all or most of your fert down as Pre-M. Now, if the two pre-m apps of CGM equate to ALL of your fert, how does the ACTUAL cost compare to a syn program? The new liquid product is going to get the N down to less than 1#/m, but even then, we are talking about double or better a syn pre-m w/ fert application when compared on a fertilization rate. We haven't even touched the beneficial organic matter that is being cultivated vs salted out by a synthetic fert that would be comparable.

Most synthetic plans call for 4-6#'s of N/m per season. Organics tend to be a little over half of that from my understanding. Using CGM increases the organic programs N level to approach that of a synthetic program. Is this good or bad? If two apps "get'r done", where are we on cost, compared to a synthetic program?

That is IF we really want to attempt to compare it like apples to apples :)

Kiril
03-28-2009, 07:20 AM
Cultivate and maintain a high density stand of turf and you won't need any (or very little) pre-m.

Smallaxe
03-28-2009, 08:53 AM
I have never used pre-m on lawns, only spring overseeding.

Even in an unirrigated area with trees around - I wiped out a heavy infestation of Crabgrass - with a dormant seeding, overseeding later and reseeding in the fall, using the CGs' dead bodies as seed cover. There was a big improvement, in just the first season and by the next spring it was only grass.

That was a few years ago though. B4 I found the forum and learned that it can't be done. :laugh:

dishboy
03-28-2009, 09:02 AM
Wow, and I thought this forum was relatively tame :) The season starts up and the debate gets HOT.

Someone said apples to oranges..........
If the 10%N w/ Pre-M product covers 10,000'sq, how much actual fert are you getting down? This is math I KNOW. Even a 20% product covering 10-15,000'sq doesn't amount to squat as fert. The jury is still out in my mind on cost vs effectiveness, but if we were to concede that CGM at the university recommended rates works, then you have to figure enough N to match 2#N/m. If your in a long grow season and need the split app, your putting all or most of your fert down as Pre-M. Now, if the two pre-m apps of CGM equate to ALL of your fert, how does the ACTUAL cost compare to a syn program? The new liquid product is going to get the N down to less than 1#/m, but even then, we are talking about double or better a syn pre-m w/ fert application when compared on a fertilization rate. We haven't even touched the beneficial organic matter that is being cultivated vs salted out by a synthetic fert that would be comparable.

Most synthetic plans call for 4-6#'s of N/m per season. Organics tend to be a little over half of that from my understanding. Using CGM increases the organic programs N level to approach that of a synthetic program. Is this good or bad? If two apps "get'r done", where are we on cost, compared to a synthetic program?

That is IF we really want to attempt to compare it like apples to apples :)

Dumping 2#N in the spring is a terrible cultural practice for cool season turf IMO. Applying Pre-M's that root prune naturally or synthetically at a time where major root gowth is going on is also a terrible cultural practice IMO. Although probably not accepted here Drive 75 spot spraying individual plants seems like the smartest answer to Crabgrass control that I can see. My test section of turf confirms Kiril's assertion; "compost does a soil good".

TMGL&L
03-28-2009, 09:05 PM
I have used the product and had excellent results in the first year of use on a property tht had a bad history. It costs wayyyyy too much on a tough budgeted lawn. A cavalcade/ combination product would be much more economical for a property that is pretty large. If you want to go "organic" then I think, though it may be hard and idealistic, you have to boycott non-sustainable products...including "hybrid" products.

Do to forum rules, I guess he can't advertise directly for himself here unless his products become a topic of conversation but I will.... :)

ICT Organics sells Gluten-8 that is advertised to be more effective, faster, and CHEAPER!!! (roughly 1/4 price of true cgm)

Its relatively new to the market (or at least its new to me) so i hope to god it works as advertised. I think its a big breakthrough. If it works well this year i will dump all my other products and go gluten-8 totally... (obviously we can all tell I'm excited about it).

here is a link http://www.ictorganics.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products.productDetail/productID/9/index.htm

Maybe the boss will chime in on the details.

timturf
03-29-2009, 12:45 AM
Dumping 2#N in the spring is a terrible cultural practice for cool season turf IMO. Applying Pre-M's that root prune naturally or synthetically at a time where major root gowth is going on is also a terrible cultural practice IMO. Although probably not accepted here Drive 75 spot spraying individual plants seems like the smartest answer to Crabgrass control that I can see. My test section of turf confirms Kiril's assertion; "compost does a soil good".

This has always been my thought!!

bicmudpuppy
03-29-2009, 08:17 AM
"Dumping" 2#'s of N on a lawn anytime would be a bad idea. Putting down a product that is going to make 2#'s of N available over the next 18-20 weeks sounds like a great plan to me. I would never put more than 1#N/m from a synthetic, but I had no worries putting down 1.5#N as milorganite last fall on my KBG, and hitting my bentgrass w/ 1.5# with the topdressing after spring aerification. I wish I could have budgeted 2#'s. Again, realize your putting down a product that is not going to be fully available for around 20 weeks. Yes, there are synthetics that do that too, but price them!!

TMGL&L
03-29-2009, 08:30 AM
salt doesn't feed microbe populations either

dishboy
03-29-2009, 09:31 AM
This has always been my thought!!

I knew I had read it somewhere before, good to see you are still around Tim, you always shared sound information here.

Prolawnservice
03-29-2009, 01:36 PM
Tim,

I debated this with you a few years ago and you said you were going to research it and get back to me, but you never got back to answer(good to see you on, its been a while) http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=189253 Bic made the exact point I did, Its all slow release, and your not applying salt, there will not be disease pressure from the thinning of cell walls that is caused by a spring synthetic fertilizer(salt) application. So again, why is it a bad idea?

dishboy
03-29-2009, 07:02 PM
"Dumping" 2#'s of N on a lawn anytime would be a bad idea. Putting down a product that is going to make 2#'s of N available over the next 18-20 weeks sounds like a great plan to me. I would never put more than 1#N/m from a synthetic, but I had no worries putting down 1.5#N as milorganite last fall on my KBG, and hitting my bentgrass w/ 1.5# with the topdressing after spring aerification. I wish I could have budgeted 2#'s. Again, realize your putting down a product that is not going to be fully available for around 20 weeks. Yes, there are synthetics that do that too, but price them!!

Do you have experience applying 2lbs/m CGM in the spring?. What is your source that says CGM will take 18 to 20 weeks to release?.
I could not find the thread but I remember the moderator DcHall talking about applying CGM @ the recommended rate and the resulting rapid growth rate. I personally have seen excessive spring growth from slow release organic sources at far less than 2lb/m rates. Applying heavy rates of WIN in the fall vs. spring on cool season turf is a far different animal IMO

bicmudpuppy
03-29-2009, 07:42 PM
I've never applied CGM. I have applied Milorganite @ 2#/m and I've actually seen it go down at very close to 3#/m as a spring app. The purpose was organic matter and the results were dramatic, but nothing like applying even 1# of synthetic. The modern synthetics are much slower release than ferts used to be, but @ 3#/m of milorganite, I would compare the turf response to less than 1#N/m as Ammonium sulfate or Urea.

Smallaxe
03-29-2009, 10:10 PM
... Its all slow release, and your not applying salt, there will not be disease pressure from the thinning of cell walls that is caused by a spring synthetic fertilizer(salt) application. ...

Do you think there is any link to fert. and thinning cell wall?

Smallaxe
03-29-2009, 10:25 PM
... I personally have seen excessive spring growth from slow release organic sources at far less than 2lb/m rates. ...

It is common to see -"EXCESSIVE' growth rates in the spring - no matter what you put down during the plants' dormancy...

Spring time N actually stunts the deep root development - in favor of surface root development. Doesn't matter though, the green is what the plant focusses on in spring time. Photosynthesis and sun is where the plant is going for food!! to last until next spring.

Did you know that the grass doesn't know that you are going to dump on 3 more # of N b4 the season is done? The plant doesn't count on that...

JDUtah
03-30-2009, 01:33 AM
salt doesn't feed microbe populations either

you might wanna do some more reading.. Urea has been documented to increase microbial degradation rates in compost piles.

TMGL&L
03-30-2009, 08:13 AM
ya but salt is a dessicant. I'm just repeating what I heard from other landscapers and from "Teaming With Microbes."

It's actually something I have been trying to research because I know adding N to compost makes the microbes grow like crazy. Then again, as my book says, bacteria and fungus (along with other microbes) need "bioslime," which is water to move and they need water to carry out their metabolic processes.

last time I saw a Salt vs. slug fight it was brutal.

timturf
03-30-2009, 09:09 AM
from Milorganite people, 1 lb of nitrogren from milorganite will last 6-8 weeks, if soil temps greater than 55 degrees

My comments

cgm, needs 20-40 lbs to acheive pre emerge control, depending on pressure and how many years applied or applications you have made

At least 2/3 of nitrogen for cool season turf should be applied fall or winter. Could consider all of n applied at this time

ICT Bill
03-30-2009, 09:27 AM
from Milorganite people, 1 lb of nitrogren from milorganite will last 6-8 weeks, if soil temps greater than 55 degrees

My comments

cgm, needs 20-40 lbs to acheive pre emerge control, depending on pressure and how many years applied or applications you have made

At least 2/3 of nitrogen for cool season turf should be applied fall or winter. Could consider all of n applied at this time

Tim,
This is a big reason why on our liquid corn gluten meal (Gluten-8) we have reduced the N to 1.5%. Many states have laws that you cannot apply more than 1 pound of N at any application. If you are applying 20 Lbs per 1000 of CGM you are applying 2 Lbs of N and breaking the fertilizer laws.

Our Gluten-8 product keeps you compliant

bicmudpuppy
03-30-2009, 09:32 AM
from Milorganite people, 1 lb of nitrogren from milorganite will last 6-8 weeks, if soil temps greater than 55 degrees



It doesn't matter WHO said what. I have never seen any significant fert reaction from an organic like milorganite in less than 3-4 weeks. You don't put it down today for growth tomorrow. You put it down today for growth next month. My biggest worry with the fall application last year was that the weather wasn't going to hold until after I had it down for 4+weeks before ground temps dropped below an active temp. 55 sounds good, but things just slow down below that point. You get 10-15 degrees colder than that and most everything stops. It is also slow to re-start. What was still happening last fall at 45 doesn't re-start until you get well above 50. 52-53 degrees is usually my target temp in the spring that says that I need to get active before everything else does. Once it hits 55, your behind the curve. My expectations for Milorganite or similar products is that the only fert value I get is from the .5% water soluble and the iron response for the first few weeks. After that, the application rate is targeted for an 8-12 week response in warm weather and a 12-16 week response with cool temperatures.

Back to CGM. Corn gluten, as fertilizer, has yet to be composted, so should we not expect additional delays before that N is plant available? Somebody who has read the studies more thoroughly, or is more awake than I am, do the chemistry. My gut reaction would be an additional 4-6 weeks before we start to get some real benefit from the product as fertilizer. To me, this would mean that the Spring application as pre-m doesn't kick in as fert for two months. Shortly after that, we will be at a point where the repeat application of pre-m is needed for max control. Two months later, that N is going to start to be plant available. Now, we are at late summer or early fall? As was posted with the GA HO about bermuda, you have to get organic fertilizers down sooner than synthetics to hit your target fertilization time. I am not sure that CGM doesn't fit that scenario rather well with a very nice weed control benefit. Maybe it doesn't really react that slowly. Again, I wouldn't expect the fert benefit from the CGM prior to when I expected the herbicidal benefit to begin to wear out. My thought process would not expect both, simultaneously.

Kiril
03-30-2009, 09:35 AM
cgm, needs 20-40 lbs to acheive pre emerge control, depending on pressure and how many years applied or applications you have made

There it is again .... the implication that CGM effectiveness increases over time.

I've asked this before, and I will ask it again. Where is the information with regard to the effective compound and the need for a "soil buildup"?

I have seen absolutely NO information with regard to this, and per studies I have read published by ISU, if the compound were persistent in the soil, eventually nothing would grow.

http://www.hort.iastate.edu/gluten/pdf/cornglut3.pdf

Observations during the study revealed that
the corn gluten meal had a growth-regulating effect on the root system of bentgrass. As
the level of application increased, root inhibition increased. Shoot development was
observed to be normal at all levels of corn gluten meal application. At lethal doses, no
root system developed and plants died when drying of the soil occurred.

In fact, I believe the opposite is true .... as microbial activity increases the effectiveness of CGM as a pre-m decreases. This is why timing of application is critical, because efficacy decreases over time.

In the original study, corn meal was observed to lose its inhibitory effect
on germination when it was used as a medium for microbial growth. Microbial activity
reducing the effectiveness of the inhibitory substance is the likely reason for the
somewhat more limited crabgrass reduction in 1988.

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 09:37 AM
I have never used pre-m on lawns, only spring overseeding.

Even in an unirrigated area with trees around - I wiped out a heavy infestation of Crabgrass - with a dormant seeding, overseeding later and reseeding in the fall, using the CGs' dead bodies as seed cover. There was a big improvement, in just the first season and by the next spring it was only grass.

That was a few years ago though. B4 I found the forum and learned that it can't be done. :laugh:

That's funny!:laugh::laugh::laugh: Of course you would have known that if you had a Phd!:rolleyes:

timturf
03-30-2009, 09:37 AM
Tim,

I debated this with you a few years ago and you said you were going to research it and get back to me, but you never got back to answer(good to see you on, its been a while) http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=189253 Bic made the exact point I did, Its all slow release, and your not applying salt, there will not be disease pressure from the thinning of cell walls that is caused by a spring synthetic fertilizer(salt) application. So again, why is it a bad idea?

Ok Pro,

Have no idea how long 20 or more lbs of gcm will last as a nitrogen source. My progran in zone 7, consist of 4 applications, with a total of 3 lbs/m of nitrogen from a bridge or fortified fertilizer. I do apply ~ 1 lbs/m of n in late winter and late spring, so their is no way I could apply 20lbs of gcm.

Didn't know salt caused disease, news to me!

Not all synthetic ferts have high salt index

Excess top growth at the expense of root structure

been to too many fert presentation of 2/3 of N in fall and winter for cool season turf, this not a topic of discussion

No, or very little spring summer nitrogen helps promote better root structure and hardens the plant off for the stress, which is very imporant here in the transition zone. Remember, your roots are always dieing and being replace, but not very fast in high soil temps for cool season turf

Why can you supposely can reduce n application by 50% if using an true organic? I believe the same can be done with synthetic, if you use a quality synthetic nitrogen source, something that you retain almost all of n applied, not lost to the air or leaching. Watch the salt and chlorine in ferts, don't forget mop.......Organic, 100% programs, I believe have a problem keeping the p2o5 low, and getting enough k. Is sop consider a natural fert and ok for a 100% organic program

I believe that cgm would be great on a warm season turf

ICT Bill
03-30-2009, 09:39 AM
That is, IF you get the moisture to break it down, we spoke to lots of folks last year that had a very dry spring and many of their sites still had CGM on the surface 6 weeks later. Not only was it not providing any pre-m traits but the Nutrients were not being released as well

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 10:10 AM
from Milorganite people, 1 lb of nitrogren from milorganite will last 6-8 weeks, if soil temps greater than 55 degrees

My comments

cgm, needs 20-40 lbs to acheive pre emerge control, depending on pressure and how many years applied or applications you have made

At least 2/3 of nitrogen for cool season turf should be applied fall or winter. Could consider all of n applied at this time

Not to start a fight, but... . Why is milorganite/biosolid called an organic when the EPA (no right wing think tank for sure) can't gaurentee public safety over it's use on crops , and as late as 2006 found PCB's (is that organic?) in milorganite? It has been documented to contain heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium (yummy), copper, etc.), aforementioned PCB's, dioxin (another organic product?), bromine and other flame ******ents as well as other human pathogens (diseases).And this was all found AFTER the "cleansing/purification" process! These studies are not ancient history (2000/2002). One EPA scientist calls milorganite " the last analytical frontier". He said it is a literal black hole, "We put stuff in and then we can't find it upon analysis, so we cannot with any certainty say what is/is not in it". Is that really what you want to put on your customers property? Why not just use chicken litter and/or mulch the grass (it's a green manure). And has already been mentioned, sow the daylights out the lawn and cut high. Just my 6 cents (adjusted for inflation :laugh:).

JDUtah
03-30-2009, 10:39 AM
ya but salt is a dessicant. I'm just repeating what I heard from other landscapers and from "Teaming With Microbes."

It's actually something I have been trying to research because I know adding N to compost makes the microbes grow like crazy. Then again, as my book says, bacteria and fungus (along with other microbes) need "bioslime," which is water to move and they need water to carry out their metabolic processes.

last time I saw a Salt vs. slug fight it was brutal.

If you ever find a study that demonstrates 4-6 lbs N applied over 5 apps in a year actually does harm soil microbes let me know. So far the evidence I have seen slants the other way.

Salt, as in fertilizer, as in dossolvable, is the only form nutrients can be absorbed by plants. Microbes turning organic ferts into salts is what makes the organic ferts available to the plants. So why do the microbes create the salts? For the plants? No.. they break down the complex molecules into salt ions so they can use them themselves. In other words salts are food for microbes.

Everyone is talking about CG becoming available to the plant... It all depends on how well/quickly you get the microbes to break it down into salts. Not enough water=not enough microbes=slow or no release... wrong temp for microbes=not enough microbe activity for them to break it down (into salt ions)... etc

The problem starts when you get too high of a concentration of salts. This is where the confusion comes in. Claims have been popularized without any real study investigating if the normal use of mineral fertilizers (4-6 lbs N over 5 apps in a year) causes a toxic concentration of salts (plant and microbe food)...

my general opinion... if the concentration is balanced enough to grow healthy plants, it is balanced enough to grow microbes... generally speaking.

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 10:49 AM
If you ever find a study that demonstrates 4-6 lbs N applied over 5 apps in a year actually does harm soil microbes let me know. So far the evidence I have seen slants the other way.

Salt, as in fertilizer, as in dossolvable, is the only form nutrients can be absorbed by plants. Microbes turning organic ferts into salts is what makes the organic ferts available to the plants. So why do the microbes create the salts? For the plants? No.. they break down the complex molecules into salt ions so they can use them themselves. In other words salts are food for microbes.

Everyone is talking about CG becoming available to the plant... It all depends on how well/quickly you get the microbes to break it down into salts. Not enough water=not enough microbes=slow or no release... wrong temp for microbes=not enough microbe activity for them to break it down (into salt ions)... etc

Thank you for a brief and yet succinct response as to why organics work or not.


The problem starts when you get too high of a concentration of salts. This is where the confusion comes in. Claims have been popularized without any real study investigating if the normal use of mineral fertilizers (4-6 lbs N over 5 apps in a year) causes a toxic concentration of salts (plant and microbe food)...

my general opinion... if the concentration is balanced enough to grow healthy plants, it is balanced enough to grow microbes... generally speaking.

Thank you!

Kiril
03-30-2009, 11:22 AM
The problem starts when you get too high of a concentration of salts. This is where the confusion comes in. Claims have been popularized without any real study investigating if the normal use of mineral fertilizers (4-6 lbs N over 5 apps in a year) causes a toxic concentration of salts (plant and microbe food)...

And what if your soil already has a high SAR or EC? I fear you are over simplifying and generalizing a rather complex set of conditions that can occur in a synthetic only program and even some organic programs depending on the source material.

Fact of the matter is, if salt inputs exceed outputs, you will get an increase in salts.

How many people here monitor their plant nutrient uptake to ensure what is put down is also consumed?

How about the osmotic potential of your soil solution?

JDUtah
03-30-2009, 12:10 PM
And what if your soil already has a high SAR or EC? I fear you are over simplifying and generalizing a rather complex set of conditions that can occur in a synthetic only program and even some organic programs depending on the source material.

Fact of the matter is, if salt inputs exceed outputs, you will get an increase in salts.

How many people here monitor their plant nutrient uptake to ensure what is put down is also consumed?

How about the osmotic potential of your soil solution?

I understand what you are saying. The fact is that general blanket claims for both fert and organic have been made, and neither is an end all...

The best way to do it is to understand thoroughly your soil, irrigation water, and available ferts (organic and synthetic)

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 01:09 PM
I understand what you are saying. The fact is that general blanket claims for both fert and organic have been made, and neither is an end all...

The best way to do it is to understand thoroughly your soil, irrigation water, and available ferts (organic and synthetic)

AMEN!Finally someboby that doesn't have terminal myopia! You can fert my lawn anytime:).

JDUtah
03-30-2009, 03:09 PM
AMEN!Finally someboby that doesn't have terminal myopia! You can fert my lawn anytime:).

The contract is in the mail! :laugh:

To their credit, I think most people in this forum like Kiril, Tree, etc. have, and do use synthetics when appropriate. IMO promoting organics just makes them come across as uncompromising at times. :waving:

Kiril
03-30-2009, 03:57 PM
Perhaps if more people took the time to understand how SOM relates to soil fertility there would be fewer arguments.

JDUtah
03-30-2009, 04:07 PM
Kiril, care to expand? Maybe another thread?

phasthound
03-30-2009, 06:20 PM
The contract is in the mail! :laugh:

To their credit, I think most people in this forum like Kiril, Tree, etc. have, and do use synthetics when appropriate. IMO promoting organics just makes them come across as uncompromising at times. :waving:

As I have said many times, it's about organic matter, not necessarily "organics".

JDUtah
03-30-2009, 07:18 PM
As I have said many times, it's about organic matter, not necessarily "organics".

Barry. I love the new site. And the new slogan. "We make organic matter" is perrrrrfect for your business model!

bicmudpuppy
03-30-2009, 08:11 PM
First, the OP was about Pre-M first and then about the N quantities involved in using CGM. So, any worries about the N being excessive for a spring app would be unfounded because the CGM is going to have to 'post before it becomes plant available. As to the lack of composting due to dry conditions.......It really does not matter what pre-m product you use, if it doesn't get watered in, you wasted your time. All pre-m products work better in adequately irrigated conditions. In an adequately irrigated condition, is the CGM going to take MORE than 4-5 months to become plant available N? If not, we have our built in FALL app of nitrogen with our spring app of pre-emergent. Yes, the salt indexes vary on ALL fert options and charging the customer to make 6 trips will reduce the amount of salt applied per app so that the soil will tolerate it better. Which is better? Making 2-3 apps with the same results and almost no chance of problems with the soil ecology? Or making 5-6 apps for those results with potential problems at every step of the process if a mistake is made in the application? I can spill the spreader/wheelbarrel/bucket/bag of compost or biosolids and work the material in with a rake and the worst thing that MIGHT happen is a dark green spot in the lawn. Spill even a little bit of ANY synthetic on the turf and your going to have a spot that will eventually die and fail to fill in for a very long time. You can charge less per season for 2-3 apps and make more money than you can covering the same ground 5-6 times for the same results. Yes, on a per app basis, the organics may be more expensive. On an annual basis, I think the organic program is going to be more competitive AND more "friendly" to the target crop.

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 11:10 PM
As I have said many times, it's about organic matter, not necessarily "organics".

Exactly! So what do you do for the customer with 1.5% organic matter in hardpan? Push organics or use synthetic to get it going?

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 11:25 PM
First, the OP was about Pre-M first and then about the N quantities involved in using CGM. So, any worries about the N being excessive for a spring app would be unfounded because the CGM is going to have to 'post before it becomes plant available. As to the lack of composting due to dry conditions.......It really does not matter what pre-m product you use, if it doesn't get watered in, you wasted your time. All pre-m products work better in adequately irrigated conditions. In an adequately irrigated condition, is the CGM going to take MORE than 4-5 months to become plant available N? If not, we have our built in FALL app of nitrogen with our spring app of pre-emergent. Yes, the salt indexes vary on ALL fert options and charging the customer to make 6 trips will reduce the amount of salt applied per app so that the soil will tolerate it better. Which is better? Making 2-3 apps with the same results and almost no chance of problems with the soil ecology? Or making 5-6 apps for those results with potential problems at every step of the process if a mistake is made in the application? I can spill the spreader/wheelbarrel/bucket/bag of compost or biosolids and work the material in with a rake and the worst thing that MIGHT happen is a dark green spot in the lawn. Spill even a little bit of ANY synthetic on the turf and your going to have a spot that will eventually die and fail to fill in for a very long time. You can charge less per season for 2-3 apps and make more money than you can covering the same ground 5-6 times for the same results. Yes, on a per app basis, the organics may be more expensive. On an annual basis, I think the organic program is going to be more competitive AND more "friendly" to the target crop.

We'll see how this goes. At the risk of drawing you ire, what do you mean by "friendly" to the target crop?

tobylou8
03-30-2009, 11:28 PM
Exactly! So what do you do for the customer with 1.5% organic matter in hardpan? Push organics or use synthetic to get it going?

And please don't somebody say "it depends", clients don't want to here that.

bicmudpuppy
03-31-2009, 07:26 AM
I use synthetics. It would take about 5 seconds for anyone who wanted to look to find my posts about the ammonium sulfate I've applied already this year, BUT from an agronomic standpoint, the "compost does a soil good" saw that is repeated here, again and again is true. Organic sources of fertilizer are not just about NPK. They tend to be more "friendly" to the target because the are not NPK directed. The N levels in an organic fertilizer give a benchmark to compare them to synthetics. They do not really compare to synthetics. It is a different philosophy of how you treat the SOIL the target is being grown in. And, yes, I am staying vague about the "target crop", because, even though this discussion started with pre-m and turf, the concept transcends to the vegetable garden and any cultivation practices. Farmers have been moving to "no-till" and the use of bio-solids when possible for a long time here in North America, and getting away from 'artificial agriculture'. In many cultures, and even here, the organic concept has never really left, it just gets partially shelved with worship to the almighty dollar. Drive the country side, and you will still see "honey wagons" on most smaller farms. We "know" that putting the organic matter back is good for the soil and the crops. We just have gotten lazy and have taken the "easy way out" with low cost synthetics. This argument transcends just fertilization. The turf industry is full of research that is just beginning to show how badly we have destroyed soil ecosystems with fungicides and herbicides and then propped up the turf with synthetics to mask the damage. Cosmetic fixes are not long term, and I firmly believe that the only reason we haven't seen a complete crash from these cosmetic reactions is a combination of the resiliency of turf as a target and the fact that those who promote the problem the most don't last on the properties they are destroying. When was the last time you saw a property that had been with the same LCO for ten years with no changes? Now, make that a national "spray and pray" LCO chain? In golf courses, the 4 year wonders that are churned out of the university system, with no other real background in the industry, move around a LOT. The "system" keeps coming up with a new synthetic "silver bullet" for every problem and we even push "bugs in a jug" to make up for the lack of stewardship that got us to the point of needing the "bugs in a jug" in the first place. The 1.5#N/m I applied to my greens with the spring aerification is important to know in regards to future fertilizer applications, BUT the most important part is that I put down 25# product/m, not the actual N content as much. I could have put the same 1.5#N/m down with a low salt, slow release source and used 12 bags of product(50# bags). I would have had less Fe, but more P and K very easily. Instead, I used over 40 bags of product. The organic matter that went down to get that N content is much more important to the soil than the fertilizer annalysis on the bag.

For the lawn with terrible soil structure (hard pan, no SOM), I think the jump start your going to see from a quality organic program has the potential to make your customer, a life long customer, BUT if your an honest business man, would you promise a miracle with synthetics? You can't promise that miracle with an organic program either. There is lots of talk here about building a "bridge", or "bridge programs". The organic fertilizer is going to be SLOW. Doing something short term while this transformation takes place is a must for commercial situations. The customer with the crap yard doesn't want to hear WHY the yard looks like it does. They want to hear about how you are going to "fix" it. New seed and lots of fertilizer will "fix" it, short term and cosmetically. A quality program is going to address the problem and provide a long term solution. Aerification, compost, and seed is going to provide a long term solution. A quick app of starter fertilizer or some CT to give the new seed a chance so that everything else works is a cosmetic application that gets made to satisfy the "I want it NOW", modern philosophy. We pay that price to get where we know the soil needs to be. Short term, this may be less profitable, if we stay competitive in the market, on a renovation scale, BUT, long term, a quality organic program should mean less inputs, better turf, and more profit at a LOWER cost to the customer. The biggest hurdle I see here is earning the customers trust to get to that point. Reputation and integrity will get you there.

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 07:31 AM
Exactly! So what do you do for the customer with 1.5% organic matter in hardpan? Push organics or use synthetic to get it going?

A hardpan has always meant the subsoil that packed under the 'tilled' layer. After heavy rains those areas would be muddy till it air dried. So the 'subsoiler' was developed to tear some lines in that hardpan.

If you mean a compacted, heavy, clay loam soil. Then aeration and top dressing with a sandy compost is about the best.

Of course everyone will freak out about the 'sandy' part of the statement. :laugh:
If you are scared of it just try it in a small area.

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 08:24 AM
... The biggest hurdle I see here is earning the customers trust to get to that point. Reputation and integrity will get you there.

The customer doesn't really understand what you are trying to accomplish in the soil. Hardly anyone understands what we are accomplishing in the soil.
When we look at 'organic' NPK inputs to match the amounts of synthetic NPK, then we can be pretty sure that not much is understood about what is going on in the soil.

I am not trying to be funny, arrogant, arguementive, or any such thing of the like. The problem is any thought out of time with anyones' preconcieved notions is quickly mocked and goes no where.

Can a compost with .5/.5/.5 (NPK) be applied to seed and be an adequate 'starter fertilizer'? In most normal soils the answer is yes. Not because of the P amount in the 'fertilizer', but because of what is happening in the soil.

ICT Bill
03-31-2009, 08:49 AM
The customer doesn't really understand what you are trying to accomplish in the soil. Hardly anyone understands what we are accomplishing in the soil.
When we look at 'organic' NPK inputs to match the amounts of synthetic NPK, then we can be pretty sure that not much is understood about what is going on in the soil.

I am not trying to be funny, arrogant, arguementive, or any such thing of the like. The problem is any thought out of time with anyones' preconcieved notions is quickly mocked and goes no where.

Can a compost with .5/.5/.5 (NPK) be applied to seed and be an adequate 'starter fertilizer'? In most normal soils the answer is yes. Not because of the P amount in the 'fertilizer', but because of what is happening in the soil.

Nicely said and I agree with you, sometimes there is nothing going on in the soil, hydroseeding for instance. The plant, after using the resources provided in the seed during germination often need a gentle push (nutrients) to the next stage to get established. This is the time when most losses occur in seeding, once through that stage the root begins to establish its symbioytic relationships in the soil.

this is why plants will often put out millions of seeds in a year, so that some will get established, its a cruel world out there LOL

I am not saying YOU HAVE TO have plant available nuntrients for this process but often you will have better success especially if the seed is in a hostile environment

bicmudpuppy
03-31-2009, 08:55 AM
The biggest hurdle I see here is earning the customers trust to get to that point. Reputation and integrity will get you there.
I put the most important part of the quote in bold.

The customer doesn't really understand what you are trying to accomplish in the soil. Hardly anyone understands what we are accomplishing in the soil.
Exactly why TRUST is the key ingredient. Be professional and reputable. Those first ten customers are the hardest ten. The first 50, the hardest 50, etc. BUT once you have them and their trust, you have them, without question. The customer education should stop at the point they understand YOUR qualifications, and not extend to the point that we are educating them about what we are actually doing. I've spent a lifetime acquiring the knowledge I have to do what I do. If they can afford my service, I hope they have done the same in their profession. If they want to spend the time to explain to me what they do first, I might feel like reciprocating.

Can a compost with .5/.5/.5 (NPK) be applied to seed and be an adequate 'starter fertilizer'? In most normal soils the answer is yes. Not because of the P amount in the 'fertilizer', but because of what is happening in the soil.

I haven't done or seen specific tests on 'post, but I would think the analysis above is low, but I don't think it really matters. I wouldn't consider 'post to be a starter fertilizer. I would consider it a phenomenal starter seed bed and mulch for the new seed. I think I would still be very tempted to add a very light shot of fertilizer to the mix or make an application about ten days after seeding, but I tend to "push" turf.

tobylou8
03-31-2009, 09:18 AM
A hardpan has always meant the subsoil that packed under the 'tilled' layer. After heavy rains those areas would be muddy till it air dried. So the 'subsoiler' was developed to tear some lines in that hardpan.

If you mean a compacted, heavy, clay loam soil. Then aeration and top dressing with a sandy compost is about the best.

Of course everyone will freak out about the 'sandy' part of the statement. :laugh:
If you are scared of it just try it in a small area.

I mean the former in reference to hardpan. In my area the subsoil is only an inch or 2 deep. West of the fall line it's red, blue marle, gray, or white silica clay. East it's sand and pea gravel (my yard). Since SOM seems critical for organics to be effective and not so much for synthetics wouldn't recommending their use make more sense initially? I mulch every lawn on a fert program, so I am constantly adding organic compost to the soil. The OP looked to fit this profile (low SOM) and I was lampooned for my advice, yet as the thread progresses,those that lampooned are saying the same thing. It's a little confusing. So what do you mean by 'subsoiler' ? Is it a product, tool, or technique? Just looking to learn.

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 09:37 AM
I mean the former in reference to hardpan. In my area the subsoil is only an inch or 2 deep. ...

So you mean you have 2 inches of topsoil and your hardpan starts, at that depth? Or do you mean that your hardpan is only 2" thick and the sand is underneath.

A subsoiler has long teeth that are capable of ripping into a hard subsoil, several inches below the plow depth. Strong teeth and a lot of horse power to do that. :)

tobylou8
03-31-2009, 09:49 AM
The customer doesn't really understand what you are trying to accomplish in the soil. Hardly anyone understands what we are accomplishing in the soil.
When we look at 'organic' NPK inputs to match the amounts of synthetic NPK, then we can be pretty sure that not much is understood about what is going on in the soil.

I am not trying to be funny, arrogant, arguementive, or any such thing of the like. The problem is any thought out of time with anyones' preconcieved notions is quickly mocked and goes no where.

Can a compost with .5/.5/.5 (NPK) be applied to seed and be an adequate 'starter fertilizer'? In most normal soils the answer is yes. Not because of the P amount in the 'fertilizer', but because of what is happening in the soil.

Well said. On you last statement, what is considered normal soil (% of OM)? Here its thin topsoil (if at all) then crud. My kingdom for loamy soil:).

tobylou8
03-31-2009, 10:06 AM
So you mean you have 2 inches of topsoil and your hardpan starts, at that depth? Or do you mean that your hardpan is only 2" thick and the sand is underneath.

A subsoiler has long teeth that are capable of ripping into a hard subsoil, several inches below the plow depth. Strong teeth and a lot of horse power to do that. :)

Yes, hardpan starts at 2" or less. No sand west of the fall line. Just good old clay until you hit water or granite (funny story, really rich guy wants ALL rocks out of his ground so he can have the perfect lawn. Excavator hits a boulder, tells the rich guy its big. Rich guy says get it out at all cost. Spends 1.5 million on removal only ro find out it was bedrock.True story). Thats what I thought a subsoiler was. We call them "rippers" down here. Wouldn't do any good since the cable, phone, irrirgation, and sod have already been installed. I have never seen a builder use one here. This is Harley country, and not the bike.

Kiril
03-31-2009, 10:09 AM
Let us get straight on what a hardpan is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardpan

Lots of people in the south east call their clay hardpan, even when it is not. It is a regional thing.

If there is a hardpan, then it should be addressed directly.

tobylou8
03-31-2009, 10:30 AM
Let us get straight on what a hardpan is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardpan

Lots of people in the south east call their clay hardpan, even when it is not. It is a regional thing.

If there is a hardpan, then it should be addressed directly.

Thanks for the link. Wiki describes our soil here to a "T". It even mentions using gypsum which I have used in white silica with with good results. Main problem I run into is the way builders do installs. They level the ground to hardpan,remove most of the established trees, build the house, install electric, put in 4 dozen of the same plant species on the foundation, bookend with chinese holly, and put 2 trees symetrically in the front lawn (usually bradfords, maples, or river birches). Then dig a hole, bury construction debris, and then install sod over top of unprepared hardpan. And this is one a million dollar home!

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 05:29 PM
... I haven't done or seen specific tests on 'post, but I would think the analysis above is low, but I don't think it really matters. I wouldn't consider 'post to be a starter fertilizer. I would consider it a phenomenal starter seed bed and mulch for the new seed. I think I would still be very tempted to add a very light shot of fertilizer to the mix or make an application about ten days after seeding, but I tend to "push" turf.

Different bags of compost have different values. I got a bag one time that claimed 3-1-1. You are right it really does not matter. IMO. What compost does for the soil is begin the process of soil structure and feed the wee-beasties that will enhance the structure. Also what happens in the soil - is a balance.

You may or may be familiar with AM fungi. Establishing them early is certainly preferable to 'not at all'. Additional P to the soil stifles or inhibits the growth and activity of AMF. Microbes like to grow in OM and many form symbiotic relationships with all kinds of plants.

The plant feeds the bacteria - the bacteria grow like crazy - dissolving specific nutrients from the soil that the plant needs at the time. We had a thread on that some time ago. ITCBill introduced it.

To me the amazing thing was when the plant had enough of a particular element it would cease or slow the production of a particular protien that activated the microbe. Then it would activate other microbes to get it some other element or 2. :)

That of course begs the question - Do these symbiotic bacteria do anything in an area where there are no plants? I found the answer to that also.

Compost is good for the purpose of promoting the habitat of microbes. Microbes given a chance will be mining whatever nutrients there are tied up in the soil. For turf, there are plenty already there w/out much -if any - additional ferts. Overwatered and compacted soils are lucky to survive on their hydroponic doses of urea every 4 weeks. So with foul cultural practices, the advantage of compost is lost b4 it ever gets started. :)

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 05:40 PM
Thanks for the link. Wiki describes our soil here to a "T". It even mentions using gypsum which I have used in white silica with with good results. Main problem I run into is the way builders do installs. They level the ground to hardpan,remove most of the established trees, build the house, install electric, put in 4 dozen of the same plant species on the foundation, bookend with chinese holly, and put 2 trees symetrically in the front lawn (usually bradfords, maples, or river birches). Then dig a hole, bury construction debris, and then install sod over top of unprepared hardpan. And this is one a million dollar home!

So you have clay soil that goes on forever, and compaction and waterlogged surfaces are a constant struggle. I still say that the aeration and topdressing of a sandy compost is the best bet.

Speaking of gypsum, which I've never tried on my clay for porosity - Does old drywall gypsum board qualify as a recyclable product into the soil?

tobylou8
03-31-2009, 10:07 PM
So you have clay soil that goes on forever, and compaction and waterlogged surfaces are a constant struggle. I still say that the aeration and topdressing of a sandy compost is the best bet.

Speaking of gypsum, which I've never tried on my clay for porosity - Does old drywall gypsum board qualify as a recyclable product into the soil?

LOL, only to the contractor:)!

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 10:21 PM
LOL, only to the contractor:)!

Cool, Now I can live the contractors' dream of recycling old and new building materials. Bury then in the ground and allow the soil to flourish. :)

tobylou8
03-31-2009, 10:24 PM
Cool, Now I can live the contractors' dream of recycling old and new building materials. Bury then in the ground and allow the soil to flourish. :)

I hear it's also a good starter for fairy ring! Then you have a disease to get rid of and get paid!

Smallaxe
03-31-2009, 11:00 PM
I hear it's also a good starter for fairy ring! Then you have a disease to get rid of and get paid!

Sounds synical, [sp]. :) I really have never come across a serious fungal disease, let alone something like 'fairy ring', in 25 yrs. I feel cheated as a result.
If drywall gives me a shot at a new challenge - here we go... :laugh:

Hopefully someone will let me know if there is documented reason not to use drywall on lawns. I have come across a supply of it and am not sure if it should just go to the landfill. The things we do off season...

Kiril
04-01-2009, 07:52 AM
Gypsum is typically used for sodic soil reclamation and nutrients. It has little/no impact on physical compaction, and little impact for dispersed soils if there is already sufficient Ca in the soil.

As far as drywall goes, don't know if I would go that route. Lots of different types of drywall .... if you know the brand and can verify via msds, then why not ... but you need some way to pulverize it (with a good mask of course).

tobylou8
04-01-2009, 08:16 AM
Sounds synical, [sp]. :) I really have never come across a serious fungal disease, let alone something like 'fairy ring', in 25 yrs. I feel cheated as a result.
If drywall gives me a shot at a new challenge - here we go... :laugh:

Hopefully someone will let me know if there is documented reason not to use drywall on lawns. I have come across a supply of it and am not sure if it should just go to the landfill. The things we do off season...

Oh the joys of living in the transition zone (7)! I think we are subject to every lawn disease available (yippee!):laughing:. But thats okay, they are all organic!:laugh: From corn gluten to drywall in the same thread. I love this site!

TMGL&L
04-01-2009, 06:36 PM
btw, I just spoke with an expert in the field personally, he said that the salts won't be enough to damage any microfauna substantially. The most effect it may have is cause a slight and temporary imbalance in the food web which makes sense.

phasthound
04-01-2009, 07:01 PM
I love your signature line.
It's sad that this is even more true in the 21st Cent.

TMGL&L
04-01-2009, 08:05 PM
I love your signature line.
It's sad that this is even more true in the 21st Cent.

...right yeah I found it the other day I thought it was pretty interesting so I used it.

ICT Bill
04-01-2009, 08:18 PM
The soil is where its at

The next frontier is under your feet, I've heard that somewhere else???

That leonardo dude had it go'n on
I wonder if we could text messgae him

upidstay
04-03-2009, 09:53 AM
I used CGM once on my own lawn. I had a beautiful, lush green lawn and lots of grab grass. It's a great fertilizer, stinks on weeds. Heard way to much conficting info on how long it takes to worrk. Nobody can answer whether or not you will be able to seed in 3 years of using it consistantly.

As far as price goes, no comparisons. Apples to hand grenades. 12000 feet of fert with dimension, $25. 12000 feet of CGM, close to $200.

tobylou8
04-03-2009, 11:26 AM
I used CGM once on my own lawn. I had a beautiful, lush green lawn and lots of grab grass. It's a great fertilizer, stinks on weeds. Heard way to much conficting info on how long it takes to worrk. Nobody can answer whether or not you will be able to seed in 3 years of using it consistantly.

As far as price goes, no comparisons. Apples to hand grenades. 12000 feet of fert with dimension, $25. 12000 feet of CGM, close to $200.

HOW DARE YOU come into this forum and tell the truth!!:laugh::laugh::laugh:. Get ready ro be excoriated. This forum is not about honest discussion and methodology. It's about "bonding", "relationships", and being "friendly" to the grass.Think of it as Oprah growing grass!:laughing:. Oh yea, most excoriators will reluctantly admit to using EEEEVIL synthetics!

upidstay
04-03-2009, 12:21 PM
Sorry. My bad. Nothing but propaganda and lies from now on. Cross my heart, etc.

Kiril
04-03-2009, 12:23 PM
HOW DARE YOU come into this forum and tell the truth!!:laugh::laugh::laugh:. Get ready ro be excoriated. This forum is not about honest discussion and methodology. It's about "bonding", "relationships", and being "friendly" to the grass.Think of it as Oprah growing grass!:laughing:. Oh yea, most excoriators will reluctantly admit to using EEEEVIL synthetics!

Do you have anything positive to contribute, like information, or are you just gonna flap your gums?

tobylou8
04-03-2009, 01:01 PM
Do you have anything positive to contribute, like information, or are you just gonna flap your gums?

You know, my grandpappy had a sayin', "Son, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit"! Wise man my grandpappy ! Is the truth not positive? You in particular have not been able to refute any of the facts as I have presented them. You say I am "chemically" correct but biologically not with regards to the grass "caring" were it got it's N from. ??? ! And everytime You "correct" me it's only with the word depends. Not exactly a bedrock answer full of information. I came to this forum looking for new information regarding organics. I am a business man and if it can be marketed and make me a profit I am all for it. Problem is still the same with organics; slow;costly; and the grass doesn't care. Even my most earth conscience clients are not willing to fork over the amount of money organics cost when they find out the grass doesn't care and will respond positively (even with low % OM) with synthetics.

tobylou8
04-03-2009, 01:03 PM
Sorry. My bad. Nothing but propaganda and lies from now on. Cross my heart, etc.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:!!!

ICT Bill
04-03-2009, 04:20 PM
I used CGM once on my own lawn. I had a beautiful, lush green lawn and lots of grab grass. It's a great fertilizer, stinks on weeds. Heard way to much conficting info on how long it takes to worrk. Nobody can answer whether or not you will be able to seed in 3 years of using it consistantly.

As far as price goes, no comparisons. Apples to hand grenades. 12000 feet of fert with dimension, $25. 12000 feet of CGM, close to $200.

I've heard that more than once, timelyness of the application is key. It has to be used as the soils get above 45 degrees so there is a certain window of application to be effective

Also some folks buy it from the farm store and the protein content is not over 60%, to be effective the protein content must be above 60%

Cost is definetly a concern, in areas where the chemical Pre-M tool has been taken away it is the only pre-m tool

dishboy
04-03-2009, 04:31 PM
You know, my grandpappy had a sayin', "Son, if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit"! Wise man my grandpappy ! Is the truth not positive? You in particular have not been able to refute any of the facts as I have presented them. You say I am "chemically" correct but biologically not with regards to the grass "caring" were it got it's N from. ??? ! And everytime You "correct" me it's only with the word depends. Not exactly a bedrock answer full of information. I came to this forum looking for new information regarding organics. I am a business man and if it can be marketed and make me a profit I am all for it. Problem is still the same with organics; slow;costly; and the grass doesn't care. Even my most earth conscience clients are not willing to fork over the amount of money organics cost when they find out the grass doesn't care and will respond positively (even with low % OM) with synthetics.

The issue is much more complex than making a blanket statement that the Grass does not care . Actually the Grass does care. My lawn stayed green all winter , not one Chemlawn or any other SYN lawn in this neighborhood did. Better cultural practices grow better/healthier turf . Now my lawn is as green as the lawns that will soon be growing three inches in a week yet my growth will be about half that........then we can wait until temps are in the 100's and they start watering every day or every other day of their lawn burns up. The grass does care and so do the homeowners who have half a brain. If you can't figure that out I delegate you to back of the bus with the intellectually challenged homeowners who base turfgrass quality on one and only one issue, is my yard greener than my neighbor's.

tobylou8
04-03-2009, 10:26 PM
The issue is much more complex than making a blanket statement that the Grass does not care . Actually the Grass does care. My lawn stayed green all winter , not one Chemlawn or any other SYN lawn in this neighborhood did. Better cultural practices grow better/healthier turf . Now my lawn is as green as the lawns that will soon be growing three inches in a week yet my growth will be about half that........then we can wait until temps are in the 100's and they start watering every day or every other day of their lawn burns up. The grass does care and so do the homeowners who have half a brain. If you can't figure that out I delegate you to back of the bus with the intellectually challenged homeowners who base turfgrass quality on one and only one issue, is my yard greener than my neighbor's.

Main problem is that I am not taking care of your neighbor's lawns! The grass "cares" ? N is N! In organics it must be broken down by microbial action or it will not be released as N! The grass does not have a brain.It lives in a constant vegetative state. If N is present and available for uptake into the roots the grass will use it and grow. Too much N, rapid top growth. Too little N, anemiac and thin. Way too much N (dog poo or urine) ,grass burns up. There could be many reasons your neighbors yards suck (sounds like opportunity knocking)! You say the issue is much more elaborate, yet you offer NO explanation at all as to what this means. Do organics affect C.E.C. and ENR/A differently than synthetics do? And as seems to be the norm in this forum, after inane factless statements are made the name calling begins. Scotty, beam me up.There is no intelligent life in this forum!

tobylou8
04-03-2009, 10:33 PM
Main problem is that I am not taking care of your neighbor's lawns! The grass "cares" ? N is N! In organics it must be broken down by microbial action or it will not be released as N! The grass does not have a brain.It lives in a constant vegetative state. If N is present and available for uptake into the roots the grass will use it and grow. Too much N, rapid top growth. Too little N, anemiac and thin. Way too much N (dog poo or urine) ,grass burns up. There could be many reasons your neighbors yards suck (sounds like opportunity knocking)! You say the issue is much more elaborate, yet you offer NO explanation at all as to what this means. Do organics affect C.E.C. and ENR/A differently than synthetics do? And as seems to be the norm in this forum, after inane factless statements are made the name calling begins. Scotty, beam me up.There is no intelligent life in this forum!

KIRIL, is this good positive information? Am I correct about the microbial action (or does it "depend"). Please correct me if i am wrong. I want to know.

Kiril
04-04-2009, 08:25 AM
You in particular have not been able to refute any of the facts as I have presented them.

What facts? I haven't seen any.

You say I am "chemically" correct but biologically not with regards to the grass "caring" were it got it's N from. ??? ! And everytime You "correct" me it's only with the word depends. Not exactly a bedrock answer full of information.

I see .... so you are one of those types .... all sites and situations are identical. :hammerhead: :rolleyes:
With regard to biological health of the soil .... there has been a ton of information posted in this forum with regard to that.

tobylou8
04-04-2009, 08:29 AM
I've heard that more than once, timelyness of the application is key. It has to be used as the soils get above 45 degrees so there is a certain window of application to be effective

Also some folks buy it from the farm store and the protein content is not over 60%, to be effective the protein content must be above 60%

Cost is definetly a concern, in areas where the chemical Pre-M tool has been taken away it is the only pre-m tool

Good to know about the protein content. Didn't know that! Nice website.

Kiril
04-04-2009, 08:56 AM
KIRIL, is this good positive information? Am I correct about the microbial action (or does it "depend"). Please correct me if i am wrong. I want to know.

You are wrong, and I have already gone over this with others in the dark forum. Plants can take up nitrogen as a nitrate or ammonium ion, nitrate being the preferred form. It takes NO microbial action for the plants to take these up when applied in this form. Any nitrate fertilizer is immediately available for uptake by plants. Any action on a nitrate ion by microbes (denitrification) is a loss of N.

The grass does not have a brain.It lives in a constant vegetative state.

Not true. Turf, like any other plant, responds to environmental pressure.

Do organics affect C.E.C. and ENR/A differently than synthetics do?

Organic matter absolutely affects CEC and ENR (assuming that means estimated nitrogen release) and a host of other things.

Smallaxe
04-04-2009, 09:17 AM
... Any nitrate fertilizer is immediately available for uptake by plants. Any action on a nitrate ion by microbes (denitrification) is a loss of N. ...

This is a good reminder of how much N is wasted on synthetic applications. Good time to review.

What was the estimated stats, put out by some University? 20% - 40% of the N put down evaporates?!!??
Different stat for leaching.

I remember we covered that last year, but am not sure that I remember the numbers correctly. I do remember that denitrification was significant. :)

tobylou8
04-04-2009, 09:50 AM
What facts? I haven't seen any.



I see .... so you are one of those types .... all sites and situations are identical. :hammerhead: :rolleyes:
With regard to biological health of the soil .... there has been a ton of information posted in this forum with regard to that.

WOW! You got me on that one! I am one of those types... ! Maybe you should reread the thread. Fact NUMBER 1: ORGANICS ARE SLOW TO WORK ! I am not the only person to say this. Read some of bicmudpuppy's posts. He/She says the same thing. Fact NUMBER 2: ORGANICS ARE COSTLY ! Compare the price of CGM to "synthetic" preemergent products per square foot and unless you have failed math horribly, even you would have to agree (unless you want to use the utopian 10 yrs down the road... argument). Fact NUMBER 3: N IS N. hopefully that needs no explanation! Now my rebuttal of my own facts. Fact 1 Bone meal and dried blood can act faster than traditional organics. The only problem is it is cost prohibitive on a large scale (not even sure its available in packaging suitable for an LCO). Fact 2. If I am a chicken or cow farmer, or have access to one, I have an endless supply of free manure. Only problem with that is it's hard to get 10 yards of manure in a BMW X5 ( seems to be the SUV of choice around here). Fact 3. Well, NITROGEN IS ALWAYS NITROGEN and the grass STILL doesn't care where it comes from, it just uses it.
"All sites and situations the same" is your mantra, not mine. Only a dunderhead would engage in a fert program w/o a soil test. Since you are an organics guru I humbly submit a question? Are grass clippings considered organic? I await your reply.

Kiril
04-04-2009, 10:09 AM
Fact NUMBER 1: ORGANICS ARE SLOW TO WORK !

Yes that can be true, but is NOT always the case. If your soil already has sufficient organic matter, then all you need to do is provide proper soil conditions to allow for nutrient turnover.

Fact NUMBER 2: ORGANICS ARE COSTLY !

I don't support the use of CGM, so your point is moot with regard to me.

Fact NUMBER 3: N IS N. hopefully that needs no explanation!

N is not N with respect to the soil, and if you had ANY understanding of soil processes and basic solution chemistry you would not make such a idiotic statement.

Fact 1 Bone meal and dried blood can act faster than traditional organics.

Blood meal is organic. Beyond that, there are plenty of organic sources of N on the market, the question is are they sustainable. Personally I recommend locally generated green waste compost with some manure added in.

The only problem is it is cost prohibitive on a large scale (not even sure its available in packaging suitable for an LCO). Fact 2. If I am a chicken or cow farmer, or have access to one, I have an endless supply of free manure. Only problem with that is it's hard to get 10 yards of manure in a BMW X5 ( seems to be the SUV of choice around here). Fact 3. Well, NITROGEN IS ALWAYS NITROGEN and the grass STILL doesn't care where it comes from, it just uses it.

Ever heard of delivery?

"All sites and situations the same" is your mantra, not mine.

Dude, you are so far off base it is not even funny.

Since you are an organics guru I humbly submit a question? Are grass clippings considered organic? I await your reply.

Yes. Why wouldn't they be, they are after all organic material, no?

bicmudpuppy
04-04-2009, 10:37 AM
Kiril, you are arguing with a typical Troll. The ONLY argument that has been suggested that has any truth to it is that organics CAN be more expensive than synthetics. While a synthetic, I don't consider ammonium sulfate to be "non-organic". It is a crutch for soil that lacks organic health. Done in small doses (spoon feeding), it provides turf response I would not get within my budget from organics alone. I hope to be mostly "free" of the crutch in two seasons. I still expect to need it in the early spring to force un-natural early green up, but back to the argument on cost. I priced every slow release winterizing product I could last summer. Milorganite won hands down for price when figured on cost per actual #N. I applied 1.5#N/m instead of 2#N/m because my source could only get me 16tons by the time I could order the product. At that time, there were no synthetics I could have purchased for less than about $26/bag and they were 18%N. I purchased 6%N milorganite @ 8.50/bag. All products were or were adjusted to 50#bags. Do the MATH. Organic was not only a slower release product, and a better price per #N product, but it was a BETTER product for the soil too. If I was in an area where bio-solids were more available, I could have cut this cost by half. How then, are organics more expensive? Increased labor? Yes, I put down 3x the product, BUT I recieve the additional benefits of the organic AND w/ Milorganite, I got 4%Fe. An artificial response at initial application, but a great sales tool to show you are doing something. I do not know if other bio-solid sources a normally iron rich or not. The link to the WA source has my interest. I could get a full semi load trucked in here for a lot less than I paid for the milorganite. If budget permits, I am going to explore that option for fall.

Kiril
04-04-2009, 10:56 AM
Kiril, you are arguing with a typical Troll.

Truth.

The ONLY argument that has been suggested that has any truth to it is that organics CAN be more expensive than synthetics.

Initially they can be, long term it will not be. It really depends on what your soils and climate can produce naturally and how far you are trying to deviate from that.

While a synthetic, I don't consider ammonium sulfate to be "non-organic".

I have to disagree, but one could make an argument for urea (chemically speaking). With your typical N source, it is more about what it takes to bring it to the end user. Shiit or any other viable N containing organic waste product (preferably locally produced) is a good source of N and is far more sustainable than anything that is produced via the Haber–Bosch process.

It is a crutch for soil that lacks organic health. Done in small doses (spoon feeding), it provides turf response I would not get within my budget from organics alone.

Yes, your situation (golf/sports) is unique and cannot be fully extended to residential/commercial landscapes. The expectations and performance requirements are much different.

I hope to be mostly "free" of the crutch in two seasons.

:clapping::clapping: I sincerely hope you get there.

ICT Bill
04-04-2009, 10:08 PM
Less inputs of NPK and pesticides, TYVM (thank you very much)

Them versus us is a long and drawn out (for generations) diatribe

mrkosar
04-06-2009, 04:00 AM
well, i learned a little reading those 10 pages of mess. it's too bad the moderator couldn't pull out all the meaningless banter, name calling, and my brain is larger than yours statements. it would save me so much time.

here is my question:

once you have this barrier set in place from CGM after say 3 years how can you seed at all? from my understanding it isn't selective in inhibiting seed germination whether it is bluegrass or crabgrass.

Smallaxe
04-06-2009, 06:39 AM
good luck with an answer on that one.

ICT Bill
04-06-2009, 09:38 AM
well, i learned a little reading those 10 pages of mess. it's too bad the moderator couldn't pull out all the meaningless banter, name calling, and my brain is larger than yours statements. it would save me so much time.

here is my question:

once you have this barrier set in place from CGM after say 3 years how can you seed at all? from my understanding it isn't selective in inhibiting seed germination whether it is bluegrass or crabgrass.

I am going to show a bit of ignorance here but heregoes, I just run the joint, I'm not a Phd

CGM has an effective window, as a pre-m, of maybe 8 weeks, 10 weeks if it doesn't rain much and the soil stays cooler

Liquid CGM has an effective window of 5 to 7 weeks again depending on temps and rain

Exactly why the Gluten is more effective year after year is not clear. testing does show that fact but why I am not sure why personally

I have had more than one landscaper say that they can very successfly slit seed into yards that have had Gluten put down

Ask me this question next year and I will have an answer for you, right now we are all hands on deck, spring has sprung

Calling Dr. Christians......... Dr. Christians are you there???

TMGL&L
04-06-2009, 09:44 AM
;) I didn't know about this "permanent" barrier:rolleyes: ... whoops.

I was thinking more like a few weeks or a couple months.

TMGL&L
04-06-2009, 09:49 AM
Liquid CGM has an effective window of 5 to 7 weeks again depending on temps and rain

Exactly why the Gluten is more effective year after year is not clear. testing does show that fact but why I am not sure why personally

I have had more than one landscaper say that they can very successfly slit seed into yards that have had Gluten put down


The mode of action of cgm is to spend the seed isnt it?... by "spend the seed" I mean is to let it germinate and then root prune it or kill the seedlings first pilot root by somehow dehydrating it or something. Couldn't this eventually kill and use up all of the seeds in the treated area?

I was thinking that would explain the gradual increase in success rate. I just kinda made that up tho its NOT based on any true scientific findings or anything I just figured it made some sense.:)

ICT Bill
04-06-2009, 09:50 AM
;) I didn't know about this "permanent" barrier:rolleyes: ... whoops.

I was thinking more like a few weeks or a couple months.

It does not make a permanant barrier

JDUtah
04-06-2009, 10:23 AM
If CGM really does "build up" over the years... why is no-one concerned about the build up preventing their grass seed from germinating?

On site effectiveness of CGM is highly theoretical right now. IMO just overseed, water correctly, and coach the customer to mow at the correct height.

Kiril
04-06-2009, 10:42 AM
CGM has an effective window, as a pre-m, of maybe 8 weeks, 10 weeks if it doesn't rain much and the soil stays cooler

Liquid CGM has an effective window of 5 to 7 weeks again depending on temps and rain

Given the above, the following makes zero sense.

Exactly why the Gluten is more effective year after year is not clear. testing does show that fact but why I am not sure why personally

Either the compound is persistent or it is not, you can't have it both ways. Based on what I have read in the research, it is not persistent.