organic starter fert.

[RLawns]

Can any grain meal be used as a starter fertilizer?

[Prolawnservice]

What do you mean?

I wouldn't use corn gluten if your seeding, other than that, grain meals have some different ratios of nutrients, if you need more of one nutrient based on your soil test, research and use the meal the helps fill that deficiency.

[RLawns]

I meant when i lawn renovations and spread seed I use a starter fertilizer, just would if grain meals can be used.
do you where can find nutrient info for each grain type?

[Smallaxe]

Compost makes a better cover and starter fertilizer. If you have reasonably fertile soil the compost will work a couple of ways to get your seed going. Meal has to rot b4 it releases nutrients.

[ICT Bill]

Compost makes a better cover and starter fertilizer. If you have reasonably fertile soil the compost will work a couple of ways to get your seed going. Meal has to rot b4 it releases nutrients.

I agree with smallaxe, do a small trial and see. Compost rocks for starting seeds as well as long term nutrient needs

it is typically local and sustainable as well and cost a hell of a lot less than starter fertilizer. You may need some nutrients to get thru the stage right after germination but you can cut it WAY back, use 50% to 75% less than recommended

The "meals" are better when the soils are warmer and are used as a simple form of nutrients IMHO

[RLawns]

ok thanks so much

[quackgrass]

There are a lot of tests showing that P, and K do very little for turf establishment. All you Really need is Nitrogen to push turf growth but germination won't be effected by fertilizer.

An 1/8" Compost or peat topdressing will certainly aid in establishment.

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/ec/ec1550.pdf

[muddstopper]

There are a lot of tests showing that P, and K do very little for turf establishment. All you Really need is Nitrogen to push turf growth but germination won't be effected by fertilizer.

An 1/8" Compost or peat topdressing will certainly aid in establishment.

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/ec/ec1550.pdf

I read the link, but i am going to disagree with what they said about fertilizer not effecting germination. Fertilizer can and does effect seed germination. Fertilizer can slow down and even kill seeds before they have a chance to germinate. Seeds have everything inside their shells that they need to germinate. The one thing they do need is moisture. Adding Nitrogen at the time of seeding will not improve seed establishment and adding nitrogen to soon after germination can kill the new seedlings. If N is going to be added at the time of seeding, it should be a non-Urea type N or at least a coated prill if Urea is used so as to be slow release. Otherwise the Urea will gas off in warm weather and create a ammonia gas that can kill the ungerminated seed in as little as a few hrs. If Urea is used, it should be well watered into the soil to allow the soil to act as a buffer between the seed and the urea N.

[ICT Bill]

I read the link, but i am going to disagree with what they said about fertilizer not effecting germination. Fertilizer can and does effect seed germination. Fertilizer can slow down and even kill seeds before they have a chance to germinate. Seeds have everything inside their shells that they need to germinate. The one thing they do need is moisture. Adding Nitrogen at the time of seeding will not improve seed establishment and adding nitrogen to soon after germination can kill the new seedlings. If N is going to be added at the time of seeding, it should be a non-Urea type N or at least a coated prill if Urea is used so as to be slow release. Otherwise the Urea will gas off in warm weather and create a ammonia gas that can kill the ungerminated seed in as little as a few hrs. If Urea is used, it should be well watered into the soil to allow the soil to act as a buffer between the seed and the urea N.

Mudd
I really like your insight
We have a very interesting new thing for you to try, I guess I should be saying: will to you trial a new, very interesting, thing for us? Made for hydroseeders

Very suspend able, but not totally soluble

Microbe mix for germinating seed in a little condo
bill@ictorganics.com

[Smallaxe]

I read the link, but i am going to disagree with what they said about fertilizer not effecting germination. Fertilizer can and does effect seed germination. Fertilizer can slow down and even kill seeds before they have a chance to germinate. Seeds have everything inside their shells that they need to germinate. The one thing they do need is moisture. Adding Nitrogen at the time of seeding will not improve seed establishment and adding nitrogen to soon after germination can kill the new seedlings. If N is going to be added at the time of seeding, it should be a non-Urea type N or at least a coated prill if Urea is used so as to be slow release. Otherwise the Urea will gas off in warm weather and create a ammonia gas that can kill the ungerminated seed in as little as a few hrs. If Urea is used, it should be well watered into the soil to allow the soil to act as a buffer between the seed and the urea N.

So you believe that N can burn seedlings, especially urea. Me too. I have heard that P, being present, in the soil stimulates germination, but have never seen the 'basis' for that claim. The whole "Starter Fertilizer" thing is another rippoff sales gimmick in my opinion.
Have you come across any interesting reading along those lines?

Does anyone know how long a grass seed will grow on just water and how long the root will get b4 it dies of no food? Maybe I will have to plant some seed in a vermiculite pot and feed it water only.

[bicmudpuppy]

Interesting thoughts. My complaints with starter ferts have always been that if you put the fert down w/ the seed or right before/right after, the amount of moisture being pumped into the soil to allow germ in 4-10 days means that most of the fert has to go somewhere else. In "dead" soil or sand, I would expect grass seed to make almost first mow height before it caved from lack of nutrition. I've never tried it with grass, but that is how old nurseries used to start bedding plants and annuals. Sand trays and then separate and put them into cell packs of potting soil. I've seen VERY healthy looking geraniums, begonias, etc. that were over 1.5" tall that had never seen any fert. These seeds are a LOT smaller than KBG or TTTF. I like to hit turf at about the first mow stage with some form of fert.

[Smallaxe]

Interesting thoughts. My complaints with starter ferts have always been that if you put the fert down w/ the seed or right before/right after, the amount of moisture being pumped into the soil to allow germ in 4-10 days means that most of the fert has to go somewhere else. In "dead" soil or sand, I would expect grass seed to make almost first mow height before it caved from lack of nutrition. I've never tried it with grass, but that is how old nurseries used to start bedding plants and annuals. Sand trays and then separate and put them into cell packs of potting soil. I've seen VERY healthy looking geraniums, begonias, etc. that were over 1.5" tall that had never seen any fert. These seeds are a LOT smaller than KBG or TTTF. I like to hit turf at about the first mow stage with some form of fert.

Well put... I like that. :) What is your opinion of water soluable N on the surface during the young growing stage? Would it indeed develop more side growth as opposed to energy going into the roots that grow down?

[bicmudpuppy]

Well put... I like that. :) What is your opinion of water soluable N on the surface during the young growing stage? Would it indeed develop more side growth as opposed to energy going into the roots that grow down?

Affecting the growth or growth habit of a "new" plant doesn't seem likely to me. You need to feed it and let it GROW. Fert of any kind needs to be a spoon feeding. The potential for burn is there and should be avoided. Organic bio-solids might not burn, but they are going to be so slow to provide any nutrition that I don't see the benefit. Temperature, sun shine, micro climate (north vs south slopes, etc.), and water all play a major role in how much you can put down. On an 80+degree, full sun day, I would worry about putting more than .5# water soluble N/m. On a 50 degree day, I would be more receptive to the concept of applying 1# N/m. In my situation, being on site, I would put down .25# water soluble N/m at a time and repeat the applications as often as I felt were justified by plant reaction, growth, and site conditions.

[tobylou8]

I read the link, but i am going to disagree with what they said about fertilizer not effecting germination. Fertilizer can and does effect seed germination. Fertilizer can slow down and even kill seeds before they have a chance to germinate. Seeds have everything inside their shells that they need to germinate. The one thing they do need is moisture. Adding Nitrogen at the time of seeding will not improve seed establishment and adding nitrogen to soon after germination can kill the new seedlings. If N is going to be added at the time of seeding, it should be a non-Urea type N or at least a coated prill if Urea is used so as to be slow release. Otherwise the Urea will gas off in warm weather and create a ammonia gas that can kill the ungerminated seed in as little as a few hrs. If Urea is used, it should be well watered into the soil to allow the soil to act as a buffer between the seed and the urea N.

Good info! TX

[Smallaxe]

Affecting the growth or growth habit of a "new" plant doesn't seem likely to me. You need to feed it and let it GROW. Fert of any kind needs to be a spoon feeding. The potential for burn is there and should be avoided. Organic bio-solids might not burn, but they are going to be so slow to provide any nutrition that I don't see the benefit. Temperature, sun shine, micro climate (north vs south slopes, etc.), and water all play a major role in how much you can put down. On an 80+degree, full sun day, I would worry about putting more than .5# water soluble N/m. On a 50 degree day, I would be more receptive to the concept of applying 1# N/m. In my situation, being on site, I would put down .25# water soluble N/m at a time and repeat the applications as often as I felt were justified by plant reaction, growth, and site conditions.

Any tended soil should certainly have adequate fertility to grow seedlings for a while. Water management of reducing air pockets in the soil, leaching the nutrients from the soil and producing excessive succulent growth; is the major problem with seedlings. IMO.

The idea of organic soil producing adequate fertility when a soil is able to function at a healthy level is pretty much lost in this horti-culture.

Does excessive N cause excessive growth, and is that excessive growth considered healthy disease resistant plant tissue?
Does surface N stunt the deeper growth of roots?

[TMGL&L]

Any tended soil should certainly have adequate fertility to grow seedlings for a while. Water management of reducing air pockets in the soil, leaching the nutrients from the soil and producing excessive succulent growth; is the major problem with seedlings. IMO.

The idea of organic soil producing adequate fertility when a soil is able to function at a healthy level is pretty much lost in this horti-culture.

Does excessive N cause excessive growth, and is that excessive growth considered healthy disease resistant plant tissue?
Does surface N stunt the deeper growth of roots?

I've only heard bad things about fast growing turf from high N ferts... disease prone, drought intolerant, stressed, unnatural, etc. I guess "stretched" or thin cell walls are to blame. I'm not sure if those were hypothetical questions or not...

[Smallaxe]

I've only heard bad things about fast growing turf from high N ferts... disease prone, drought intolerant, stressed, unnatural, etc. I guess "stretched" or thin cell walls are to blame. I'm not sure if those were hypothetical questions or not...

What you just said here makes sense to me as well. The common thought out there seems to be that rapid growth with lots of water means a 'healthy' lawn. I know many of my clients think that way... and that is what Chemlawn and company promote in order to sell more stuff. IMO.

Do you think the same is true for shrubs?

[bicmudpuppy]

I believe the term is "luxury consumption", and it depends on plant species, environment, season, etc. Excess nutrient availability, within reason is important. If we do not have some excess, we risk deficiency. There are a lot "things said" about doing it this way or doing it that way. Generally, you find that researchers prove what they wanted to find out in most cases. I've seen the rapid, pale, thin bladed growth on K31. It was planted in an area that had been "neglected", etc. Was there a latent excess in that soil? or were the environmental factors "perfect" and the competition from the triple seeding rate to blame? This is a reason I don't like many of the turf trials we are presented. I don't care what variety X looks like at the start of season 2. I want to see what it looks like at the end of season 3. K31, at a very high seeding rate is just as fine as some of the best TTTF for the first 6 months. Then, maturity takes over and the best plants thicken and you have a lawn that looks like K31. How do you compare two of the newer varieties at only 12 months? We need to educate that "perfect" isn't perfect. A turf that sees enough stress to develop some fortitude is healthier in the long run. Get your sites green in the spring, but then cut the water back before the summer "heat" (whatever that is in your area) gets here. Wean the grass from expecting luxury consumption of water, before the water becomes scarce. Obviously, natural rainfall makes this difficult to impossible for some, but not all. A turf that needs N in the spring (didn't get fert in the fall) is behind and will be prone to every problem that comes along. A turf that is stretching and reaching for nutrients late spring will respond to an early summer fert app very well and possibly be stronger for it. That same turf that goes hungry into fall, but gets a decent boost before freeze will winter better. The "excess" fert will be there in the spring and the cycle starts over. This sums up a management "style" that worked for those that taught me, and that I follow as best as my resources allow.

[ICT Bill]

I believe the term is "luxury consumption", and it depends on plant species, environment, season, etc. Excess nutrient availability, within reason is important. If we do not have some excess, we risk deficiency. There are a lot "things said" about doing it this way or doing it that way. Generally, you find that researchers prove what they wanted to find out in most cases. I've seen the rapid, pale, thin bladed growth on K31. It was planted in an area that had been "neglected", etc. Was there a latent excess in that soil? or were the environmental factors "perfect" and the competition from the triple seeding rate to blame? This is a reason I don't like many of the turf trials we are presented. I don't care what variety X looks like at the start of season 2. I want to see what it looks like at the end of season 3. K31, at a very high seeding rate is just as fine as some of the best TTTF for the first 6 months. Then, maturity takes over and the best plants thicken and you have a lawn that looks like K31. How do you compare two of the newer varieties at only 12 months? We need to educate that "perfect" isn't perfect. A turf that sees enough stress to develop some fortitude is healthier in the long run. Get your sites green in the spring, but then cut the water back before the summer "heat" (whatever that is in your area) gets here. Wean the grass from expecting luxury consumption of water, before the water becomes scarce. Obviously, natural rainfall makes this difficult to impossible for some, but not all. A turf that needs N in the spring (didn't get fert in the fall) is behind and will be prone to every problem that comes along. A turf that is stretching and reaching for nutrients late spring will respond to an early summer fert app very well and possibly be stronger for it. That same turf that goes hungry into fall, but gets a decent boost before freeze will winter better. The "excess" fert will be there in the spring and the cycle starts over. This sums up a management "style" that worked for those that taught me, and that I follow as best as my resources allow.


for a glorified ditch digger you have a very interesting view, great info thanks

Hey Mudd, where are you these days? I mean literally I know last year you were traveling all over

[Smallaxe]

... A turf that needs N in the spring (didn't get fert in the fall) is behind and will be prone to every problem that comes along. A turf that is stretching and reaching for nutrients late spring will respond to an early summer fert app very well and possibly be stronger for it. That same turf that goes hungry into fall, but gets a decent boost before freeze will winter better. The "excess" fert will be there in the spring and the cycle starts over. This sums up a management "style" that worked for those that taught me, and that I follow as best as my resources allow.

It seems that grass will grow green at the expense of root, when there is an excess of N sitting on the surface of the thatch. But is that true?

It seems that N will force green growth in the heat of summer when excessive amounts of water are applied. It is unnatural growth of green, but is it detrimental?

Is luxury feeding and water good or bad some of the time , all of the time, or none of the time?

Remember that America's management style is have obese children at the age of 4, because we have a certain philosophy about what is good and what is not. Luxury feeding there too. :)

[bicmudpuppy]

It seems that grass will grow green at the expense of root, when there is an excess of N sitting on the surface of the thatch. But is that true?
I'm missing the visual here. N on the surface of the thatch layer is coming from.........????? And I don't know that I've ever seen the plant grow at the expense of the root system except in the presence of a deficiency. Can we document or describe such a situation better?

It seems that N will force green growth in the heat of summer when excessive amounts of water are applied. It is unnatural growth of green, but is it detrimental?

The excessive term is the alarm bell here for me. If an excessive amount of water is present, then the plant isn't getting the right "signals" to realize it needs to conserve because of potential drought and summer heat. The growth is "natural", but the signals that caused the plant to grow in this circumstance are not. I would call it detrimental, but many customers are looking for this end result. They want lush, green grass they can mow or pay someone to mow a minimum of once if not twice a week in summer time heat. Good water management would have healthy turf that could be mowed bi-weekly. I've advocated allowing KBG going dormant in August rather than apply the water that would encourage disease.


Is luxury feeding and water good or bad some of the time , all of the time, or none of the time?

Remember that America's management style is have obese children at the age of 4, because we have a certain philosophy about what is good and what is not. Luxury feeding there too. :)
Good for the wallet of the guy getting paid to water, fert and mow said turf. IF the right measures are taken to allow the turf to be "healthy" at that level of maintenance, there is probably no real issue with the turf. Issues of water conservation and BMP are another matter.

[Smallaxe]

I'm missing the visual here. N on the surface of the thatch layer is coming from.........????? And I don't know that I've ever seen the plant grow at the expense of the root system except in the presence of a deficiency. Can we document or describe such a situation better? ...

I will try to make the point in the context of thatch - as an unnatural rapid and stunted growth, that has stems and roots all bunched together, creating an impenetrable surface, from the following article:

http://urbanext.illinois.edu/lawnchallenge/lesson5.html
Cultural practices can have a big impact on thatch. For example, heavy nitrogen fertilizer applications or overwatering frequently contribute to thatch, because they cause the lawn to grow excessively fast. Avoid overfertilizing and overwatering. Despite popular belief, short clippings dropped on the lawn after mowing are not the cause of thatch buildup.

It does not go too deep into discussing how the N causes it, but it makes sense to me that surface soluable N will cause surface lateral growth of roots, because they will become the primary feeder roots.

From the same article it mentions that many times the roots don't really reach the soil any more, for exa.:

Mechanical dethatching is also very destructive to the lawn because roots are in thatch instead of soil, so plants tear out easily.

It is my belief that starter fertilizer begins immediately addicting the plant to surface N - thus promoting lateral growth - rather than allowing the plant to naturally grow roots and leaves in accordance to its designed purpose.
Once the root mass has gone as deep as, feels right in the soil, it will then spread out. The rhizomes are not the first thing to develop to maturity.
Surface soluable N comes from the fertilizer man. :)

When you send in soil samples for testing -- Can they test what is in the thatch layer? It would be interesting to document how that compares to the analysis of the actual soil 3" down. Just a thought...

[bicmudpuppy]

I think your reading something into it that isn't there. The luxury consumption or excess N increases the production of thatch. That luxury consumption takes place whether the roots are 1" or 8" deep. That thatch layer is just thatch. If the thatch layer becomes thick enough, you will get roots within that thatch layer, but your not going to get much of anything but OM in the thatch layer, and it is not "good" OM, it is just thatch. I have seen turf with over 4" of thatch layer. Thatch so thick that an aerifier couldn't penetrate the thatch. Top dressing will eliminate even a thatch layer that thick much faster than most would believe. If the only reason for aerification is to remove thatch, and not to open the soil profile, then you would probably be better off just top dressing with 'post. If you put a layer of soil on top of a layer of thatch, natural decomposition of the thatch layer will begin. As far as "testing" the thatch layer, most will tell you to remove the thatch, crown and top from the sampled plugs to prevent skewing the SOM results. I don't think you will find any usable nutrients in a thatch layer. Some syn fungicides do like to reside in the thatch layer for maximum effectiveness.

[Kiril]

Bic, your chart.

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/NCH/images/NCH-46.fig1.gif

[bicmudpuppy]

I'm not real sure where you were going with the chart, but it says it a lot better than I did. One point to make would be that your chart is targeting yield, not growth. Grass that "goes to seed" or is allowed to form seed heads drops off drastically for growth during seed production. Not sure you can make a direct correlation with corn because you can't pinch, mow, trim corn. I still consider the "hidden hunger" to be a deficiency. Harder to detect, but that is what professionals get paid for. You would have to have a budget and love for syn N to hit the "excessive" side of your chart IMO, but I would still say that we are not looking for a "high yield" when we are talking about grass clippings. Being in the low end of luxury consumption would be an ideal target to aim for with a good program of any kind.

[Kiril]

I'm not real sure where you were going with the chart, but it says it a lot better than I did.

Just showing the relationships you were discussing.

One point to make would be that your chart is targeting yield, not growth.

Just strip the scale on the y-axis and rename it "biomass" with the same arrow as the x-axis. Relationships are the same.

Note, the graph does change for different nutrients if you put numbers on the axis

[Smallaxe]

Let's try another p.o.v.

Let's say a healthy plant needs 'x' amount of iron for 'x' amount of biomass. The soil is fertile enough to provide all the necessary micro/macro nutrients for a normal season of growth. Let us say that this is our hypothetical starting point.

Now we introduce N in large amounts and the grass starts producing a biomass that requires cutting twice a week for 3 weeks in the spring.

Did it have to use a bunch of other nutrients as well? I imagine...
Is all that rapid water-laden grass blades an invitation for fungal diseases?
How much root growth is promoted with N? Not much, I would think... and what did grow - grew in its most advantageous food scource... the surface.

I am talking about residential lawns... not high maintenance golf courses or the wannabees...

The reason I brought up the (N) testing of thatch vs. the soil 3 inches down is because I am willing to bet that the fresh apps of N never get through the thatch into the soil to begin with.
Test b4 , then after, an app of N, 3" down and I bet there is little or no change - if you have any significant thatch at all. JMO. :)

I did appreciate your comment about digesting thatch with topdressing of compost. I had thought so and had started researching it, because I had never heard it discussed or verified b4. I had seen some success last year using some post and molasses. Thanks for the info...

[Smallaxe]

... The reason I brought up the (N) testing of thatch vs. the soil 3 inches down is because I am willing to bet that the fresh apps of N never get through the thatch into the soil to begin with.
Test b4 , then after, an app of N, 3" down and I bet there is little or no change - if you have any significant thatch at all. JMO. :)

I did appreciate your comment about digesting thatch with topdressing of compost. I had thought so and had started researching it, because I had never heard it discussed or verified b4. I had seen some success last year using some post and molasses. Thanks for the info...

In this instance I am talking about real thatch as opposed to the brown dead stuff laying on the surface of the soil... There should be a new nomenclature for these 2 concepts. :)

[Kiril]

In this instance I am talking about real thatch as opposed to the brown dead stuff laying on the surface of the soil... There should be a new nomenclature for these 2 concepts. :)

There already is. Thatch is pretty well defined.

[Smallaxe]

There already is. Thatch is pretty well defined.

:laugh: What is the "official definition?? :laugh:

Dead brown stuff, perhaps. :laugh: Or Could it be... the entanglement of root, stems, alive and dead crusted together at the surface of an over fertilized lawn???

If 'thatch' was pretty well defined we would be well on the way to discussing 'thatch'.
Instead - we talk about power raking ... or some other such nonsense...

Thatch is not well defined and the more I try to talk it through with ... anyone... the more I realize I am hit with double speak... I hate double speak...

2 contrary notions , that are both true at the same time... Give me a break...

[JDUtah]

I need to go thatch my friends new lien-to.

I need to invest in some Rogain for my thinning thatch. :laugh:

[Smallaxe]

:laugh: This thatch is giving me a rash, when I walk too fast. :laugh:

[JDUtah]

:laugh: This thatch is giving me a rash, when I walk too fast. :laugh:

haha, not a nice visual. :laugh:

[bicmudpuppy]

What part of the definition are you having trouble with? It doesn't matter if we are talking about a "healthy" turf with a minimum of thatch, or a severe thatch layer that is 4+" deep. Thatch (http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/4000/4008.html) is thatch (http://berks.extension.psu.edu/mg/hgargd/turfthatch.html) is thatch (http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/L394.htm) is thatch (http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/thatch.html) is thatch (http://extension.missouri.edu/explore/agguides/hort/g06708.htm).

Links are Ohio S., Penn State, Georgia, Rhode Island, and Missouri. All on the first page of a basic search and I think you will find they all define thatch the same way. You are grasping at straws here for a theory that won't hold up. Thatch does not 'hold' nutrients. Thatch is OM that has not decayed to a point to be beneficial. Also, I think you will find that research shows that root growth, in non deficient soils, is determined by water, not nutrition.

[Smallaxe]

What part of the definition are you having trouble with? ...
.... You are grasping at straws here for a theory that won't hold up. Thatch does not 'hold' nutrients. Thatch is OM that has not decayed to a point to be beneficial. Also, I think you will find that research shows that root growth, in non deficient soils, is determined by water, not nutrition.

Thatch is also living growing roots and stems.... And you said what??? "Thatch is OM that has not decayed to a point to be beneficial." ... Thanks for making my point for me.

Many people see an accumulation of brown stuff on the lawn and will 'fix' their thatch problem with a power rake.

The dead brown stuff will not prevent the flow of water and nutrients into the soil. Thatch will and that is where your N will sit. Why do you think the living roots in the thatch layer continue to grow in the thatch layer???

I am not grasping at straws for a theory. The research has already been done but the application lags, because people can't wrap their mind around backing off the N.... Push a little more... push a little more...The application of N in the spring is stupid. That is where the thatch begins.

[Kiril]

:laugh: What is the "official definition?? :laugh:

Dead brown stuff, perhaps. :laugh: Or Could it be... the entanglement of root, stems, alive and dead crusted together at the surface of an over fertilized lawn???

If 'thatch' was pretty well defined we would be well on the way to discussing 'thatch'.
Instead - we talk about power raking ... or some other such nonsense...

Thatch is not well defined and the more I try to talk it through with ... anyone... the more I realize I am hit with double speak... I hate double speak...

2 contrary notions , that are both true at the same time... Give me a break...

Thatch is well defined ..... people just don't want to understand it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Athatch&btnG=Search

[bicmudpuppy]

Thatch is also living growing roots and stems.... And you said what??? "Thatch is OM that has not decayed to a point to be beneficial." ... Thanks for making my point for me.

Many people see an accumulation of brown stuff on the lawn and will 'fix' their thatch problem with a power rake.

The dead brown stuff will not prevent the flow of water and nutrients into the soil. Thatch will and that is where your N will sit. Why do you think the living roots in the thatch layer continue to grow in the thatch layer???

I am not grasping at straws for a theory. The research has already been done but the application lags, because people can't wrap their mind around backing off the N.... Push a little more... push a little more...The application of N in the spring is stupid. That is where the thatch begins.

Yes, there is living tissue within or as part of the makeup of a thatch layer. I take a core that has 1" of thatch, there better be something living in it so that the roots below the that layer are still connected to the plants crown and vegetation. Thatch is very hard to move water through and yes, that means that it is also difficult to move nutrients through. To say that thatch holds nutrients, I have to ask you what you think is IN that thatch layer to hold said nutrients? Water? Thatch has no soil content or it would not be thatch, so where are these nutrients lurking? and what are they attaching to so that they stay and are plant available within this layer? That the equivalent of a foliar application might linger in the thatch layer and be taken up is possible. That nutrients "sit" within that layer and reside there is not likely in any scenario I can imagine.

[Smallaxe]

Yes, there is living tissue within or as part of the makeup of a thatch layer. I take a core that has 1" of thatch, there better be something living in it so that the roots below the that layer are still connected to the plants crown and vegetation. Thatch is very hard to move water through and yes, that means that it is also difficult to move nutrients through. To say that thatch holds nutrients, I have to ask you what you think is IN that thatch layer to hold said nutrients? Water? Thatch has no soil content or it would not be thatch, so where are these nutrients lurking? and what are they attaching to so that they stay and are plant available within this layer? That the equivalent of a foliar application might linger in the thatch layer and be taken up is possible. That nutrients "sit" within that layer and reside there is not likely in any scenario I can imagine.

Soluable N goes with the water.