PDA

View Full Version : Turfgrass Actually Reduces Carbon Footprint


JimLewis
10-08-2008, 01:08 AM
Well, I know I've heard it from some of my more environmentally conscious clients. I bet some of you have heard the same thing; that lawnmowers are bad for the environment and therefore less lawn or no lawn is better for the environment. It's hard to argue with people who think they are righteous unless you have some good evidence to back yourself up.

Well, I found this great article in the August issue of "Total Landscape Care" Magazine. I went online and found the same article on their website too. It's a great article. And for those customers you have who are feeling guilty or considering getting rid of their lawn, now you have something you can show them to make them feel a whole lot better about having a lawn.


http://www.totallandscapecare.net/apps/news/articletlc.asp?id=71163




.

whoopassonthebluegrass
10-08-2008, 01:18 AM
Too many tree hugging hippies in Beaverton. That's gotta suck.

Marcos
10-08-2008, 01:46 AM
Looky here, Al Gore!

I got your carbon footprint right here!

:cool2:

Whitey4
10-08-2008, 02:46 AM
Don't tell this to the "organic forum"... they will riot.

mississippiturf
10-08-2008, 09:40 AM
Those scientists need to come to Mississippi and do a study on how many acres of turf grasses are destroyed each year by fire ants. Then compare the lawn mower emissions to the loss of absorption caused by the ants!! Betcha a quarter the ants win!!

Give me a break!!!

DUSTYCEDAR
10-08-2008, 09:50 AM
:dizzy::dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:.............................

MnDLawn
10-08-2008, 12:04 PM
WHO CARES! We are on the verge of an economic meltdown!

JimLewis
10-08-2008, 01:50 PM
Economic meltdown? Who cares??? Sheesh man, you gotta relax a little. We can get through this economic crisis. You just gotta "Have faith and nothing will be impossible", right?

JimLewis
10-08-2008, 01:53 PM
Too many tree hugging hippies in Beaverton. That's gotta suck.

That may be true. Beaverton is still one of the more conservative areas in the greater Portland-Metro area. But these types of environmental issues are on a majority of American's minds these days. Environmental concerns are no longer something for the fringe looney left. These concerns are pretty mainstream these days. And it helps to be able to set them straight with articles like this before they freak out and have you take out their lawn.

whoopassonthebluegrass
10-08-2008, 02:03 PM
...these types of environmental issues are on a majority of American's minds these days. Environmental concerns are no longer something for the fringe looney left.

Just what we need: people gettin' all responsible and stuff on us. They already took away all our good chemicals! :laugh:

larryinalabama
10-08-2008, 02:11 PM
Are we talking about Lawn grass or the Grass that Oregon is fameous for?

puppypaws
10-08-2008, 09:05 PM
Well, I know I've heard it from some of my more environmentally conscious clients. I bet some of you have heard the same thing; that lawnmowers are bad for the environment and therefore less lawn or no lawn is better for the environment. It's hard to argue with people who think they are righteous unless you have some good evidence to back yourself up.

Well, I found this great article in the August issue of "Total Landscape Care" Magazine. I went online and found the same article on their website too. It's a great article. And for those customers you have who are feeling guilty or considering getting rid of their lawn, now you have something you can show them to make them feel a whole lot better about having a lawn.


http://www.totallandscapecare.net/apps/news/articletlc.asp?id=71163




.

It is interesting you mentioned this, most people don't have a clue as to what this means. I have been continuous 100% no-till farming for 22 years. I can sell carbon credits through the Chicago Climate Exchange. A "carbon credit" is the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon dioxide which is also called an "Exchange Soil Offset". This is good for me from a monetary standpoint but it is also a strange scenario. Large companies actually buy carbon credits from the open market to offset their greenhouse gas emmissions. This is a way for me to generate income from companies putting pollution into your air, makes a lot of sense doesn't it???:dizzy:

JimLewis
10-08-2008, 09:22 PM
It is interesting you mentioned this, most people don't have a clue as to what this means.

I disagree. Maybe if you live in some rural area people don't understand what "carbon footprint" means. But most people where I live understand the idea very well. They may not all buy into it or worry about it. But it's something that's discussed in the media every day. Most people in Urban areas either hear about it and understand the concept or are actively trying to do something to reduce their carbon footprint.

Heck, I could go into my living room and find 5-10 of my trade journals (all landscape, lawn or irrigation journals) that either have cover stories or articles related to being "green", reducing your carbon footprint, or something of the like. It's a hot-button topic these days.

But it's important that people are adequately informed. A lot of people in urban areas are considering doing away with lawn and going with synthetic turf or just plants only as a way to be more environmentally conscious. I wouldn't say a majority of my clients are doing that. But I run into at least 1 every week who has it on their mind. If you think people don't understand this stuff or aren't thinking about it, you're dead wrong, man.

puppypaws
10-08-2008, 10:06 PM
I disagree. Maybe if you live in some rural area people don't understand what "carbon footprint" means. But most people where I live understand the idea very well. They may not all buy into it or worry about it. But it's something that's discussed in the media every day. Most people in Urban areas either hear about it and understand the concept or are actively trying to do something to reduce their carbon footprint.

Heck, I could go into my living room and find 5-10 of my trade journals (all landscape, lawn or irrigation journals) that either have cover stories or articles related to being "green", reducing your carbon footprint, or something of the like. It's a hot-button topic these days.

But it's important that people are adequately informed. A lot of people in urban areas are considering doing away with lawn and going with synthetic turf or just plants only as a way to be more environmentally conscious. I wouldn't say a majority of my clients are doing that. But I run into at least 1 every week who has it on their mind. If you think people don't understand this stuff or aren't thinking about it, you're dead wrong, man.

I can promise, for every one person that has a clue about what this means there are 10,000 people that do not. Yes, they have heard the word global warming, but that is far from being knowledgeable about the definition of carbon footprint. The person that started this particular thread was not aware until he read a certain article so what would make you think everyone is educated in this subject.

I am afraid you are the one wrong my friend. I can understand how people on the West Coast may be more knowledgeable of air pollution and the difficulties it causes, you need to wear a gas mask to live in California.

jeffex
10-08-2008, 11:41 PM
If I could capture a bag of carbon footprint BS and put THAT on my customers lawns then I would really have something. Here on the east coast they blame all the nitrogen problems in our bay on the farmers but all us simple lawn guys know its the badillion gallons of squirt and fert nitrogen that runs off the average homeowners lawn. The tree huggin' carbon footprint scam has yet to make it to this area . Photosynthesis and the uptake of nutrients of a lawn IS a science . carbon footprint and carbon offsets is a scam created by the lefties to scare people and extort money through guilt and government regulation. If your customers feel better that this article is proof that their lawn absorbs more carbon that your mower belches out then dam right its a good thing for your business. We'll just see how important carbon bootprints are after Al Gore lost his a$$ in all his investments in lehman brothers with his carbon footprint extortion money. justice is sweet. here in this area they have save the bay lisc. plates and a place on the md tax form to contribute to save the bay. in over 30 yrs of existence the bay has gotten WORSE and they are just in the business of testing and mostly collecting guilt money .. just like carbon footprints... hill of beans I sent them some e-mails suggesting a few solar powered aerators to increase O2 levels and even gave them the part numbers from the northern tools catalogue. hell I even volunteered to build some for free and I never even got a responce from the save the bay BS

whoopassonthebluegrass
10-08-2008, 11:42 PM
How many carbon credits do you get for dying?

JimLewis
10-09-2008, 12:14 AM
I can promise, for every one person that has a clue about what this means there are 10,000 people that do not.

Only 1 in 10,001 understand what "carbon footprint" means? You are soarly ignorant, my friend. I can discuss this with just about any adult in my area and they would know the term and exactly what it means. You guys down in Marshville must be living in a bubble.

The person that started this particular thread was not aware until he read a certain article so what would make you think everyone is educated in this subject.

The person that started this particular thread was me. And again you're showing your ignorance. You make some pretty huge assumptions. How would you know what I knew before I read that article? You Psychic too???

The term "carbon footprint" isn't some secret phrase that only Al Gore types know. It's pretty common knowledge. All you have to do is type the phrase into somewhere like Google News Search and you instantly get over 5000 recent news articles about it. Here is the search;

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=in&ned=us&q=%22carbon+footprint%22&btnG=Search+News

You telling me nobody reads those articles??? Only 1 in 10,001 actually read this stuff??? You're seriously kidding yourself. The general population isn't as ignorant as you think they are.

JimLewis
10-09-2008, 12:21 AM
And by the way, what's the the extremely negative responses? Some of you guys got some serious anger issues.

I am not advocating ultra-environmentalism here. I am about as conservative as they come. I am not the one out there trying to do everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint. I try to conserve when I can. No reason to be wasteful. But I am not some radical environmentalist. I am on the other side of that isle. But I do recognize that there are a LOT of people out there (at least in urban areas) who definitely ARE concerned about this stuff. Now, if you don't have any such people where you are, fine. Then this thread isn't for you. It doesn't pertain to you. Just move on.

But if you do happen to live in an urban area where there are a decent amount of environmentalist-like people, then this is a good article to throw their way. It helps YOU try to overcome some of their whacky uninformed ideas with some good research of your own.

DUSTYCEDAR
10-09-2008, 12:31 AM
people have to change the all about me attitude and the carbon foot print is a start.

whoopassonthebluegrass
10-09-2008, 12:34 AM
I don't think anyone's labeling you as a wingnut, Jim. It IS good information to have in the arsenal, even if one's territory doesn't have these issues. We need to be working together to compile every bit of support/benefit for what we do. The best offense is a good defense...

JimLewis
10-09-2008, 02:19 AM
Exactly. That's the only reason I was bringing up this article.

I never imagined it would start some sort of rant session about how much people hate environmentalists.

jeffex
10-09-2008, 07:56 AM
The article ,as I said ,is a good tool in dealing with customers who are environmentalists who are adverse to the perceived damage to the environment of our equipment. I am of the belief that the real damage from the lawn business in the massive runoff of nitrogen ,phosphorus and potassium from customers who demand instant green lawns. I'm sure The fert industry has a well financed lobby to protect its interests in Washington. the Starbucks crowds believes they can do what they want as long as they pay someone to plant a tree in some part of the world. its not a zero sum model as they are sold on by the carbon offset scam. Slow release organic fert and corn gluten are proven environmentally safer methods of adding nutrients but they are not instant green. this article goes a long way at selling the value of a good healthy lawn vs astro turf. I could see where in your enviro conscious customer base this would be a great way to establish your niche as an educator to customers and a great sales tool. My customer base has yet to demand this level of service . It may be on its way though as they are subject to media hype too. This area has some of the cheapest water in the country. $20 water bills for a 1/4 yr. billing where I cut. the constant media hype , however, about drought conditions has scared them into believing that watering their lawn is un American. the drought could be in another part of the country and they still are afraid to water their lawns. This is another example of how the TV can change our society without real fact or truth. Your area has obviously embraced the global warming and carbon footprint movement. This might be easier than explaining to someone that you don't scalp tall fescue lawns like your dad used to. Running a lawn business can be very regional even from neighborhood to neighborhood . Good luck

puppypaws
10-09-2008, 10:18 AM
If I could capture a bag of carbon footprint BS and put THAT on my customers lawns then I would really have something. Here on the east coast they blame all the nitrogen problems in our bay on the farmers but all us simple lawn guys know its the badillion gallons of squirt and fert nitrogen that runs off the average homeowners lawn. The tree huggin' carbon footprint scam has yet to make it to this area . Photosynthesis and the uptake of nutrients of a lawn IS a science . carbon footprint and carbon offsets is a scam created by the lefties to scare people and extort money through guilt and government regulation. If your customers feel better that this article is proof that their lawn absorbs more carbon that your mower belches out then dam right its a good thing for your business. We'll just see how important carbon bootprints are after Al Gore lost his a$$ in all his investments in lehman brothers with his carbon footprint extortion money. justice is sweet. here in this area they have save the bay lisc. plates and a place on the md tax form to contribute to save the bay. in over 30 yrs of existence the bay has gotten WORSE and they are just in the business of testing and mostly collecting guilt money .. just like carbon footprints... hill of beans I sent them some e-mails suggesting a few solar powered aerators to increase O2 levels and even gave them the part numbers from the northern tools catalogue. hell I even volunteered to build some for free and I never even got a responce from the save the bay BS

I am glad to see someone with enough common sense to understand how stupid these so-called intelligent people are; that conjure up the rules and regulations we are suppose to adhere to concerning environment.

They give me as a farmer nightmares trying to keep enough records as a paper trail of any chicken manure (which is organic fertilizer) I apply on my farm.

The Chesapeake Bay is a prime example, just find someone to blame the bays excessive nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates on. We can then target them to get the tree huggers off our backs.

These regulators are not so stupid they cannot understand most all lawns are over fertilized. With a big rain or heavy irrigation there is nothing to stop, or even slow down these nutrients from going straight into the storm drainage system. Once these nutrients hit the storm drains their next drop point is the nearest stream and straight into the bay.

The average home owner does not understand soil agronomy, their train of thought is if this much makes my grass look good then twice that amount will make it look better for a longer period of time.

I need to get off this before my blood pressure goes up. The type people regulating what we as farmers do are the same highly educated idiots that got our country in this terrible economic state.

People with common sense you were blessed with is becoming a dieing breed in this country. This is not something easily taught, it mainly comes through your parents gene pool and is slowly but surely being filtered away.

puppypaws
10-09-2008, 11:49 AM
Only 1 in 10,001 understand what "carbon footprint" means? You are soarly ignorant, my friend. I can discuss this with just about any adult in my area and they would know the term and exactly what it means. You guys down in Marshville must be living in a bubble.



The person that started this particular thread was me. And again you're showing your ignorance. You make some pretty huge assumptions. How would you know what I knew before I read that article? You Psychic too???

The term "carbon footprint" isn't some secret phrase that only Al Gore types know. It's pretty common knowledge. All you have to do is type the phrase into somewhere like Google News Search and you instantly get over 5000 recent news articles about it. Here is the search;

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=in&ned=us&q=%22carbon+footprint%22&btnG=Search+News

You telling me nobody reads those articles??? Only 1 in 10,001 actually read this stuff??? You're seriously kidding yourself. The general population isn't as ignorant as you think they are.

If everyone was as intelligent as you on this subject then there would be no need to point this article out to everyone, this knowledge is already retained. According to what you are saying the majority of people are well educated in this subject. I would tend to agree there probably are more people on the West Coast with this knowledge because California is where the first red flag was raised about air quality problems.

I'm a farmer and able to generate income through the selling of "carbon credits", this is my only interest. I educated myself on the subject by reason of ability to increase income from my farming venture. Had it not been for money being involved, I would have never wasted my time trying to understand the meaning. I could actually care less, the same as the larger majority of people across the US.

I also think you are wrong saying, "The term "carbon footprint" isn't some secret phrase that only Al Gore types know." The "tree hugger" Al Gore types are the only people interested in this type information. The large majority of people would not waste their time reading about "carbon footprint".

Now, let's have your honest opinion, getting away from the West Coast and going with the majority of population. How many people out of say 1000 randomly picked across the US would you think to have googled the words "carbon footprint?" I really need you to be honest, the same as I would be with you.

Chime in, do you people reading this have an understanding of the "carbon footprint" topic. In such a case what percentage of people across the country would you say have any idea about this information.

Marcos
10-09-2008, 01:02 PM
It is interesting you mentioned this, most people don't have a clue as to what this means. I have been continuous 100% no-till farming for 22 years. I can sell carbon credits through the Chicago Climate Exchange. A "carbon credit" is the equivalent of one metric ton of carbon dioxide which is also called an "Exchange Soil Offset". This is good for me from a monetary standpoint but it is also a strange scenario. Large companies actually buy carbon credits from the open market to offset their greenhouse gas emmissions. This is a way for me to generate income from companies putting pollution into your air, makes a lot of sense doesn't it???:dizzy:

....nothing but an open invitation to embezzlement & fraud!
Just the way the Lefties planned it!

dishboy
10-09-2008, 02:12 PM
....nothing but an open invitation to embezzlement & fraud!
Just the way the Lefties planned it!

So are you implying RIGHTIES don't Lie steal and cheat?

larryinalabama
10-09-2008, 03:17 PM
I never put Carbon on my feet therefore I dont leave any FOOTPRINT. Think I can sell carbon off sets anyone interested?

JimLewis
10-09-2008, 03:46 PM
If everyone was as intelligent as you on this subject then there would be no need to point this article out to everyone, this knowledge is already retained. According to what you are saying the majority of people are well educated in this subject.

No. I never said that. I just said that there is a decent percentage of our society who are concerned with this stuff and probably an even higher percentage who understand the phrase and what it means. I never said majority. You said it was 1 in 10,001. I was refuting that. But I never said the majority of people. If I were to guess, I'd figure about 30%-50% of the people where I live understand the concept of the carbon footprint and about 10%-15% of the people where I live are actively trying to reduce their "carbon footprint." Even if it's 5%, it's still a sizable amount of our customers. That's 1 in 20. And the problem with most of these ultra-liberal environmentalist types is they typically get a little too over zealous and just start acting on assumptions rather than fact. I know for a fact I've had clients who have asked me to remove their lawn and come up with more "green" alternatives that wouldn't require the use of gas-powered equipment to maintain. And I am just saying when you run into those types; take a minute and educate them with this article. Is that so bad?

JimLewis
10-09-2008, 04:16 PM
..... And the problem with most of these ultra-liberal environmentalist types is they typically get a little too over zealous and just start acting on assumptions rather than fact.....

And I think it's safe to say (evidenced by some of the angry responses on this thread) that people on the far-right tend to get a little over zealous on this subject as well. :usflag:

causalitist
10-09-2008, 04:29 PM
grass uses up only as much carbon as is in the actively growing plant.
as nfar as carbon, its about "carbon sequestering" - which is when carbon is used by a plant, and kept in the plant for many years. trees are really all the does this, they store all the carbon they absorb in thier massive trunks for many many years, effectively taking it out of the ecosystem for that time.

grass uses up co2 then releases it when it decomposes.

now, if you were to bag, dry it out, burn it in your furnace, you would reduce carbon footprint by the amount of heating fuels it replaced ... since it would have released that co2 by decomposing anyway.... dang, thats a good idea! hahaa if i had an acre of healthy lawn, and a big furnace, i would save alot of money!!!!

jeffex
10-09-2008, 10:15 PM
puppypaws, I feel for you independent farmers. Your easy targets for governments trying to suck a fee out of every business they can. Your only fault is your only one vote. Going after suburbia to save the bay in my region is political suicide.Too many voters to piss off. And besides the same people over fertilizing their lawns are contributing to the save the bay foundation . Irony?! after 30 yrs of save the bay it got a d- and there are record #s of dead zones. So they continue on the same path of blaming chicken poo for excess nitrogen . Dotting your I's and crossing your t's but spelling the word WRONG. Common sense says that a farmer is like any other businessman/woman, they spend as little as possible on costs like fertilizer to produce the maximum yield. they are not just wingin' it. Jim Lewis quite possibly is closer to actually limiting carbon output by simply convincing a few of his lawn customers to simply keep the turf intact than most of the BS studies and carbon offsets. Follow the money trail my friends and you'll discover what kind of "green" people are truly interested in. Hmm... how can I figure out to extort a guilt tax on my lawn customers to pay me NOT to cut their lawns and make them feel greener. Anyone have Al Gores phone number? with sound and verifiable scientific evidence people will move towards it. The dilema we face today is a lack of truth in all the rhetoric we are given. Political agendas and the almighty dollar can conjur up what ever science money will buy

puppypaws
10-09-2008, 11:17 PM
puppypaws, I feel for you independent farmers. Your easy targets for governments trying to suck a fee out of every business they can. Your only fault is your only one vote. Going after suburbia to save the bay in my region is political suicide.Too many voters to piss off. And besides the same people over fertilizing their lawns are contributing to the save the bay foundation . Irony?! after 30 yrs of save the bay it got a d- and there are record #s of dead zones. So they continue on the same path of blaming chicken poo for excess nitrogen . Dotting your I's and crossing your t's but spelling the word WRONG. Common sense says that a farmer is like any other businessman/woman, they spend as little as possible on costs like fertilizer to produce the maximum yield. they are not just wingin' it. Jim Lewis quite possibly is closer to actually limiting carbon output by simply convincing a few of his lawn customers to simply keep the turf intact than most of the BS studies and carbon offsets. Follow the money trail my friends and you'll discover what kind of "green" people are truly interested in. Hmm... how can I figure out to extort a guilt tax on my lawn customers to pay me NOT to cut their lawns and make them feel greener. Anyone have Al Gores phone number? with sound and verifiable scientific evidence people will move towards it. The dilema we face today is a lack of truth in all the rhetoric we are given. Political agendas and the almighty dollar can conjur up what ever science money will buy

I agree with this and I also agree that Jim Lewis is trying to make a difference along with securing grass to be mowed, which I can understand being the main agenda.

There is roughly 304,000,000 people in the US, and I would say there is a very small number in comparison that has a clue what we are talking about or could not care less.

The government rules farmers to the point of getting close to regulating a number out of business. The EPA is now in the process of putting air monitors on our poultry houses to see how much nitrogen is moving into the atmosphere along with small particle air pollution. There has already been talk of attempting to install an electrostatic air filtration system in poultry houses.
People have no idea of the cost and extra work of maintaining a system of this type.

The government can vote in rules and regulations with very little problem. They could not care less what it takes to implement these changes or how much it could affect the food supply.

jeffex
10-10-2008, 07:00 AM
And the customer pays for all this in the long run in the prices they pay for poultry!. If my customer moves towards questioning my carbon footprint I will be forced to make some efforts to first find out what the truth is. By that I mean some research into the chemistry of how much carbon a lawn actually takes in vs how much my stuff puts out. Of course I could just tell them it works and print out this article but where is the evidence. Not my style. The published facts from the study( by a independent testing company) that show parts per million , grams , cubic ft...or whatever the chemical measurement. Maybe it was there and I didn't look deep enough. Jim this may be in all our futures and I'm can appreciate your experience with this type customer. My rants against so called enviornmentalists is more from the frustration I feel by people who take up a cause just because they here a 30 second sound byte on the TV. They then champion it as if it was gospel and try and force disinformation on others. I love this business because it is so close to a free market with supply and demand ruling the game. In your world knowledge of "green" is in play. I'll bet there are agronomists lurking on this site that could give a very detailed explanation of carbon up take of lawns. But I have one question... who says carbon is soooo bad. Humans are made of carbon and water ! I think air and water pollution were superceeded by the carbon scare . I can SEE the effects of air and water pollution and I still believe that cause has miles to go IMO. We don't need irrational scare tactics . we need enviornmental policies based on FACT to give incentive to business and citizens to preserve thier quality of life. When a government official pushes for money to reduce global warming and carbon offsets and then leaves office and starts a business to capitalize on the same scare... isn't ther a little conflict of interest there. Just my opinion though. Saddling companies with expensive equipment costs sends them to 3rd word countries. Working with them to make it MORE profitable to produce a product or service that is as good as possile for the enviornment and humans is what I would wish for.

txgrassguy
10-10-2008, 09:04 AM
grass uses up only as much carbon as is in the actively growing plant.
as nfar as carbon, its about "carbon sequestering" - which is when carbon is used by a plant, and kept in the plant for many years. trees are really all the does this, they store all the carbon they absorb in thier massive trunks for many many years, effectively taking it out of the ecosystem for that time.

grass uses up co2 then releases it when it decomposes.

now, if you were to bag, dry it out, burn it in your furnace, you would reduce carbon footprint by the amount of heating fuels it replaced ... since it would have released that co2 by decomposing anyway.... dang, thats a good idea! hahaa if i had an acre of healthy lawn, and a big furnace, i would save alot of money!!!!

What you are referring too is a by product of denitrification and the bacterial release of CO2. Everything in this world that respires, be it plant or animal, will retain some amount of carbon - there never is a complete exchange unless the organism dies and the carbon adhering to the cellular structures is released during decomposition. And this form of CO2 is not a catalyst suitable for ignition - CO2 is inert.
Turfgrass, and most monocots for that matter, never uses CO2 - it releases CO2 during it's respiration cycle. Should any living organism imbibe beyond a certain minute level of CO2, the organism will suffer from a toxic build up of this inert gas and growth will markedly suffer.
This is why core aerification of turfgrasses is important as the CO2 build up in the soil HAS to be released in order for the bacterial populations to respire properly.
So for those of you with eco-minded clients, up-sell the benefits to the environment through core aerification 2-3 times per year.

naturescape
10-10-2008, 09:55 AM
I really think this whole carbon footprint "benefit" of lawn care is really just being made up by the lawn care industry.

I'm in this business, I enjoy it, I try to do thing relatively efficiently, versus the other crews out there that could care less...... That is the point of my business and how I advertise it.

But lawns and lawn care being good for the environment? I don't think so!

puppypaws
10-10-2008, 10:00 AM
What you are referring too is a by product of denitrification and the bacterial release of CO2. Everything in this world that respires, be it plant or animal, will retain some amount of carbon - there never is a complete exchange unless the organism dies and the carbon adhering to the cellular structures is released during decomposition. And this form of CO2 is not a catalyst suitable for ignition - CO2 is inert.
Turfgrass, and most monocots for that matter, never uses CO2 - it releases CO2 during it's respiration cycle. Should any living organism imbibe beyond a certain minute level of CO2, the organism will suffer from a toxic build up of this inert gas and growth will markedly suffer.
This is why core aerification of turfgrasses is important as the CO2 build up in the soil HAS to be released in order for the bacterial populations to respire properly.
So for those of you with eco-minded clients, up-sell the benefits to the environment through core aerification 2-3 times per year.

This is very true, now explain the consequences and monetary value lost in our world as one 15" tree is cut down. When you see large construction sites cleared of all trees and growth, you can stop and say to yourself, there went more of the eco systems ability to clean and produce what my lungs need to sustain life.

JimLewis
10-10-2008, 02:25 PM
I really think this whole carbon footprint "benefit" of lawn care is really just being made up by the lawn care industry.
.....But lawns and lawn care being good for the environment? I don't think so!

So the universities and environmental researchers doing the studies are all in the tank for the Lawn Mowers Union of America? Is that what you're suggesting?? The studies cited in the article aren't valid? They're made up? Or funded by lawn jockeys?

Show me one shred of evidence or where some lawn-care group funded the research or influenced these studies and I might agree with you. Otherwise, I think you're just spouting stuff off nonsense without doing any research to support your opinion.

Why is it lefties always just assume that everything has a net negative effect on the environment despite any real evidence??? :hammerhead:

txgrassguy
10-10-2008, 06:46 PM
The single most efficacious atmosphere cleansing area, per square foot, is the C3 species of turfgrass. Trees are most adept at the actual removal of particulate matter from the atmosphere, however, turfgrass stabilizes the atmosphere to a greater degree.
This has been known about for many years and has formed the basis for "greener" (if there is such a word) movements in urban settings.
Upon the advent of cost effective commercial satellite mapping a curious phenomenon was noticed when viewing cities "footprints". Seems there were isolated "hot" spots, very well defined, scattered throughout whatever city mapped.
Turned out to be synthetic grassed athletic fields causing the "hot" spot.
When heavily forested areas and nature turfgrass sites were compared, the "coolest" by far, was golf courses.
There exists a myriad of non-partisan studies confirming these observations.
And Naturescape, you just flunked plant morphology/physiology 101.

puppypaws
10-10-2008, 10:01 PM
The single most efficacious atmosphere cleansing area, per square foot, is the C3 species of turfgrass. Trees are most adept at the actual removal of particulate matter from the atmosphere, however, turfgrass stabilizes the atmosphere to a greater degree.
This has been known about for many years and has formed the basis for "greener" (if there is such a word) movements in urban settings.
Upon the advent of cost effective commercial satellite mapping a curious phenomenon was noticed when viewing cities "footprints". Seems there were isolated "hot" spots, very well defined, scattered throughout whatever city mapped.
Turned out to be synthetic grassed athletic fields causing the "hot" spot.
When heavily forested areas and nature turfgrass sites were compared, the "coolest" by far, was golf courses.
There exists a myriad of non-partisan studies confirming these observations.
And Naturescape, you just flunked plant morphology/physiology 101.

If you can only leave the most beneficial between grass and trees for the environment, you best leave the trees. This is why the Rain Forest is so badly needed.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00827.htm

naturescape
10-11-2008, 11:08 AM
I really hope this is all true. It would sure make me feel a lot better about the business I am in. As of now, I simply look at it as a matter of running the business more efficiently and environmentally friendlier than most others do. (mulch all leaves, spot treatment of weeds only, etc.)

naturescape
10-11-2008, 11:12 AM
BTW, the initial article mentions that the study was conducted FOR the industry... should give you some doubt about it's veracity. Also, when irrigation of turfgrass is considered, the benefits may not be so great.... that is mentioned at the end of the article.

puppypaws
10-11-2008, 11:46 AM
I really hope this is all true. It would sure make me feel a lot better about the business I am in. As of now, I simply look at it as a matter of running the business more efficiently and environmentally friendlier than most others do. (mulch all leaves, spot treatment of weeds only, etc.)

You are contributing to the environment and peoples ability to breath, as we all know the bodies first need is oxygen, (death of the brain cells begin in 4 to 5 minutes) next is water (around a 8 to 14 days until death) then food (about 6 weeks) this is depending on the person. Keeping healthy grass is more important than people actually understand, it is one part of a very large puzzle which we will never fully comprehend.

Trees are the most important part of this complex system, and it really hurts me to see old trees taken down to build manmade structures in the name of progress.

DUSTYCEDAR
10-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Trees are the most important part of this complex system, and it really hurts me to see old trees taken down to build manmade structures in the name of progress.
I HATE THAT ALSO I LOVE TREES