PDA

View Full Version : Scott's and Lesco Fert Test


T Edwards
07-04-2004, 08:31 AM
Just for grins I applied 2 different brands on Centipede grass on each side of a walkway.
One side got Scott's 22-3-3 weed and feed which costs $32 for a 15 K foot bag.
The other side got Lesco 20-0-20 with Atrazine which costs $20 for a comparable coverage bag.

After 4 weeks the turf on each side of the walk was just about weed-free, but the Lesco side looked greener and healthier with more runners and thicker blades.

One yard is a small test sample to be sure, but all our Lesco lawns are looking good this season.

Have any of you guys run comparisons like this in the past?

dishboy
07-04-2004, 09:12 AM
The amount of K is the reason for the thicher blades and probably the darker green also as it aids in making the N available.

DennisF
07-04-2004, 09:29 AM
I agree, the Lesco products that I use seem to produce better results. Lesco also seems to produce good results for a longer time. Scotts use to be the best, but I think Lesco has worked hard to improve their products and it's paying off for them.

BCSteel
07-04-2004, 10:07 AM
I think that if you are going to run a comparison test between 2 companys, you would have to use the exact same ratios of fert on both sides.

muddstopper
07-04-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by BCSteel
I think that if you are going to run a comparison test between 2 companys, you would have to use the exact same ratios of fert on both sides.

Ditto.

jajwrigh
07-04-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by BCSteel
I think that if you are going to run a comparison test between 2 companys, you would have to use the exact same ratios of fert on both sides.

It only makes sense this way!!

Hamons
07-04-2004, 03:20 PM
Good test of what a little more potash can for the grass -- bu tnothing to do witht he brands.

Also, what were the nutrients derived from? ANy slow release? Were they both basically urea and mop?

T Edwards
07-04-2004, 06:49 PM
"I think that if you are going to run a comparison test between 2 companys, you would have to use the exact same ratios of fert on both sides. "

This is true, so I bought the ratios that were advertised by each brand for Centipede grass. I was looking for the most bang for my buck, and I believe Lesco provides it at 2/3s the cost of Scott's.

BCSteel
07-04-2004, 07:26 PM
Its still not an acurate test. Just because the lesco brand made the lawn greener, doesnt mean that it is better. The ratios were still far off from each other and it was still not an acurate test of the actual products involved.

Lesco was cheaper but would the the results truly be superior to Scotts under the same N-P-K ratios? We'll never know until it is done right.

LwnmwrMan22
07-05-2004, 10:54 PM
Even between the same brand you've got to be careful.

I was going to switch to Green-Flo from Lesco in my PG to cut down on the costs of clean-up, where you get dry fert on the parking lot, etc., until I realized that 1 gallon of Green-Flo contained like .125 lbs of N. Even though the Green-Flo was 30-0-0 and the dry I run is 30-0-10, you'd have to have 8 gallons of Green-Flo to get the same amount of N in 50 lbs of dry.

Gotta see how much of a % each one has, not just the numbers.

tremor
07-06-2004, 08:43 AM
Hmmmm.....I think T.E.'s test does have merit.

If both analysis were the same, & all the nutrients were derived from the same source, then the outcome would be identical. Since the 2 companies have made agronomic decisions that affect the outcome, his test protocol is good for what it is: A test of 2 available offerings that are supposed to be formulated for a particular market.

As for Green-Flo:

Green-Flo 30-0-0 weighs 10.5 lbs per gallon. So since it's 30%N, a gallon contains 3.15 lbs of actual Nitrogen. Since most would be foliar absorbed, & none of the N-Sure based triazone Urea will volatilize, not a whole lot of this material needs to be applied compared to other sources of liquid or granular Nitrogen which are often subject to large losses.

Therefore an application of as little as .33 lbs/N/M would really do a nice job. So a gallon would cover 9500 sq ft at this rate.

I know. All this means squat since I woork for LESCO! LOL
Doesn't matter. I wouldn't lie for anyone. Don't need to.

Steve

LwnmwrMan22
07-06-2004, 09:28 AM
The other problem with Green-Flo....

Not rated for low volume sprayers.

Starting to realize something I didn't before I bought the PG. Most of the chemicals I used before aren't rated for my PG. Gotta have the 1.5 - 4 gallons of spray mix / 1000. Kinda hard to get that out of the PG, unless you're going REAL slow and filling up about every 3000 sq/ft.

Kinda like driving a V-10, gotta have another tank hooked on behind to run with you. :D

petekief
07-27-2004, 12:47 PM
scott's weed and feed $32 looks good
Lesco's weed and feed $20 looks better
???????
i'd get the lesco stuff.

Brody11
07-27-2004, 01:28 PM
I've been using Lesco products for years. Good stuff, good people, plus I'm not in direct competition with them(scott's lawncare),YET!!