Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fertilizer Application' started by americanlawn, Jan 16, 2014.
No free T-shirts, only a free one year subscription to Lawnsite.com
That sucks. Heretage & you all others -- cool stuff for sure. I wish somebody could do some side-to-side comparisons with different formulations of micros/sulfur/etc/etc. I would, but I have to save money to buy my own tee shirts.
I remember my ChemLawn truck number in 1979 Texas. #809. We used powder blue just once in awhile (it was a pretty color, and I liked it). But for the most part, we used powder grey (cheaper). Had to clean the strainer twice a day, and it looked like concrete (explains the slow release factor).
Land grant universities always seem to be behind the times regarding new technology. Then you have chemical & fert companies trying to sell their newest stuff. Odd thing is that some products that have been around for decades still outperform some of the "new stuff" IMO.
Common thread universities & fert companies have in common >> both rely on "guys in the field" to get their info. I have the highest respect for you guys that shared info regarding this topic. Thank you.
Much respect as well. Press on and move forward with some outside the box thinking from time to time LOL.
Here is a link to have a look at.....
Both the University and the local vendors look to me many times to tell them what is working and not working or else why something is doing something unexpected. I am not cheap, clients do not hold back when it comes to paying me, therefore, I have to produce.
I think the best approach to being able to claim your program IS better is to show that you don't use a program, but you prefer to use your individually tailored treatment applications for their specific landscape.
I don't believe many companies offer this. Most companies purchase fert by the pallet. Same blend for all the INDIVIDUAL lawns. This is poor management in multiple ways. Sure it's cheap.
Ask your customer if they would use a doctor that treated all his patients the same or would you prefer a doctor who would treat you as an INDIVIDUAL. There's numerous reasons not to apply the same blend to different lawns. Sometimes sure. But not as a standard business practice. Control products, most likely, but not nutrients.
The biggest difference any application company can claim is a "TRUE"customized program.
Plus that any viable program is solely dependent on its architect. Then sell "YOU"!
Posted via Mobile Device
That is the core of my operation. I am not spreading what everyone else does. Applications are soil test and experience driven. Does a doctor prescribe medication without doing blood work? That is the question I ask prospective clients.
I do not post very often, but felt compelled as this thread was not only very informative, but also very cordial. It is nice to see such a long thread with exchange of information, and open acceptance of each other ideas without it degrading.
Anyway, as the nights draw longer and cooler, maybe this thread could continue with the results from the season offered, as well as the possible education of people like myself in the art of better soil management. I would love to get a better understanding of soil amendments to increase OM.
I agree Bryn. Very cool & knowlegable information from so many members with a whole lot of experience. (many of which could easily teach college courses) IMO.
Many products that Iowa State & other land grant universities use in their test plots come from venders that sell to all of us on this forum. Seems most of the time, the latest & best info comes from chemical companies & fert companies compared to universities. IMO
I suggest to every one to keep in touch with their local colleges that have a good horticulture program. They learn from us --- guys in the field with first-hand experience.
Here's an electronic newsletter that ISU offers. http://www.iaturf.blogspot.com
I don't think that the universities are behind the times at all. A lot of this "new technology" isn't really new at all -- and it doesn't do the things that the salesmen promise that it does.
A lot of guys are looking for something to outsmart science. They want to think that there's some trick to growing grass that no one else has found before and that no scientist on the planet has tried before. Very often, LCOs fall for shiny labels, slick salesmen, and steak dinners from companies just trying to sell their stuff.
Although it's not the end-all-be-all, the first thing I ask suppliers when they have something new is "let's see your university data." When they can show me the unbiased data and openly discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their product, I know that we can have realistic conversations about their product. But, when they tell me that they don't have university data (and they give loads of excuses on why they don't have it), that's a red flag that the product may not be entirely on the up-and-up.
If your land grant turfgrass program isn't recommending a particular product or practice, that should tell you something.
Good point Skipster. One example would be 'Imprellis". I chose not to use it (even though many others did) because it had no "track record". I trust my two most used reps -- they go to meetings alot. They know which companies are crooks, etc. They also work with ISU regarding testing products/results.