Register free!


Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-28-2009, 01:01 AM
bicmudpuppy's Avatar
bicmudpuppy bicmudpuppy is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aztec, NM
Posts: 2,792
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
__________________
Over educated
Over Qualified
Glorified Ditch Digger
....but still a bargain compared to anything else.
And I NEVER say I told you so out loud.
How many Hats can you wear?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-28-2009, 08:20 AM
Kiril Kiril is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: District 9 CA
Posts: 18,316
Cultivate and maintain a high density stand of turf and you won't need any (or very little) pre-m.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-28-2009, 09:53 AM
Smallaxe Smallaxe is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 9,945
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.
__________________
*
Now that I know that clay's texture(platelets) has nothing to do with water infiltration, percolation, or drainage
,,, I wonder what does...
*
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-28-2009, 10:02 AM
dishboy dishboy is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: zone 6
Posts: 3,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicmudpuppy View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-28-2009, 10:05 PM
TMGL&L's Avatar
TMGL&L TMGL&L is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south central pa
Posts: 243
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...ID/9/index.htm

Maybe the boss will chime in on the details.
__________________
We know more about the movement of celestial bodies
than about the soil underfoot.
-Leonardo da Vinci 16th Century
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-29-2009, 01:45 AM
timturf timturf is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: central virgina, transition, plant hardy zone 7a, and heat index zone 7
Posts: 1,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by dishboy View Post
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!!
__________________
Timothy J Murphy Specializing in Quality Turf
Bs in Plant and Soil Science
Almost 40 yrs exp., 20 as GC superintendent
Primarly work with cool season turf
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-29-2009, 09:17 AM
bicmudpuppy's Avatar
bicmudpuppy bicmudpuppy is offline
LawnSite Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aztec, NM
Posts: 2,792
"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!!
__________________
Over educated
Over Qualified
Glorified Ditch Digger
....but still a bargain compared to anything else.
And I NEVER say I told you so out loud.
How many Hats can you wear?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-29-2009, 09:30 AM
TMGL&L's Avatar
TMGL&L TMGL&L is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: south central pa
Posts: 243
salt doesn't feed microbe populations either
__________________
We know more about the movement of celestial bodies
than about the soil underfoot.
-Leonardo da Vinci 16th Century
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-29-2009, 10:31 AM
dishboy dishboy is offline
LawnSite Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: zone 6
Posts: 3,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by timturf View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-29-2009, 02:36 PM
Prolawnservice Prolawnservice is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: central jersey
Posts: 616
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?
__________________
A wise man once told me: Believe nothing that you hear and about half of what you see.

Last edited by Prolawnservice; 03-29-2009 at 02:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:52 AM.

Page generated in 0.10565 seconds with 7 queries